TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill January, 1993. The said demand was confirmed in exercise of powers under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with the interest thereon. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of cane sugar and molasses classifiable under Chapter sub heading 1701 1190 and 1703 1000 respectively of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. It is the case of the department that in the course of scrutiny of monthly returns filed by the appellants for the period from September, 1991 to January, 1993, it was noticed that the appellants had collected Central Excise duty at the rate of Rs.85/- per quintal on 84890 Qtls of VP Sugar amounting to Rs.72,15,650/- from the buyers, however, had deposited the Central Excise duty at the rate of Rs. 52/- per quintal on the said quantity amounting to Rs.44,14,280/- and thus, had retained sum of Rs.28,01,370/- with them. The department therefore, invoking the powers under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.1994 for recovery of the said amount. The same was contested by the appellants. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the contention which was soug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. vs. CCE & Customs reported in [2005 (181) ELT 328( SC)], CCE Jaipur vs. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. reported in [2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC)] submitted that notification No. 130/83-CE dated 27.4.1983 (as amended) nowhere permits collection of any amount as duty over and above what is permissible under the notification and, therefore, any amount collected by the assessee over and above the amount permissible under the said notification would be recoverable under section 11D of the said Act. He further submitted that the scheme dated 4.11.1987 nowhere permits the assessee to retain the amount collected as duty contrary to provisions of the said Act. It was also sought to be contended that section 11D is complete code in itself inasmuch as that entire procedure which is required to be followed for the recovery of the amount in terms of said section is prescribed under the said section itself and therefore, there is no scope to import the provision of section 11A in the scheme under section 11D. It was also sought to be contended that in the absence of specific limit being prescribed, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to prescribe any particular period of lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; In addition to the higher free sale quota mentioned above, the new factories and expansion projects which become entitled to incentives under the 1987 scheme will be allowed : (a) to pay excise duty as applicable to levy sugar, and (b) to retain the difference in excise duty as between levy and free sale sugar. In respect of incentive free sale quota in excess of the normal and the free sale quota . 10. The plain reading of said both notifications along with the said scheme evidently disclose that various benefits were sought to be granted to give incentive for higher production of sugar in the country. In other words, in furtherance of sugar policy, framed by the Government, Ministry of Food and Supply, the said scheme was formulated by the Ministry of Finance for granting necessary benefits under the said notifications. In relation to manufacture of sugar, the scheme clearly provided that while the manufacturers who were entitled to avail the benefit of scheme and to collect the amount equivalent to the duty payable on free sale sugar in relation to such sugar, they were allowed blanket exemption under the said notifications and could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding the development of sugar industry that the scheme was drawn and as a part of the said scheme, the notifications giving exemption were issued. 12. Once all the above aspects are clear, we fail to understand the attempt of the department seeking to invoke Section 11D and to defeat the very purpose of the Incentive Scheme and also consequently deny benefit under the new scheme to the manufacturer who is entitled to avail the same. If the contention sought to be canvassed on behalf of the department is accepted, it would virtually result in defeating very purpose of the said scheme and deny the manufacturer who is entitled to those incentives and benefits of the said two notifications. Indeed, these aspects had been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Shakti Sugars Ltd. case (supra) from a different angle. Nevertheless it has been clearly held that in such cases Section 11 (D) will have no application. 13. Section 11D (1) provides thus: (1)?Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder, [every person who is ....