TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were manufacturing exempted as well as dutiable goods. The appellants were utilising various inputs which were commonly used in exempted and dutiable products. Since the appellant were using the common inputs on which the cenvat credit was availed, while clearing the generic products , on which exemption was claimed, they reversed an amount at 8% of the value of the finished goods when cleared. The second issue in this case is regarding under valuation of the final product manufactured and cleared by them which indicated excess receipt of the amount indicated in the duty paying documents. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand raised under the first issue hereinabove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., wherein it has been indicated clearly that the provisions of Section 11D cannot be invoked for the purpose of recovery of such an amount which has been debited under Rule 57CC and collected from the customers. 5. Learned departmental representative would reiterate the findings of both the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 7. It is undisputed that the appellant is not challenging before us the charge of under valuation and hence findings recorded by the lower authorities are upheld to that extent. As regards the charge of collection of an amount of 8% of the value of exempted goods, which has been reversed by the appellant under the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue. This was the view that Division Bench took in the case of Nu-Wave shoes. We may read the relevant part of that order: Admittedly, Rule 57CC(1) is applicable in the present case. It is not the case of the Department that the assessees have been charging an amount over and above 8 of the price of the exempted variety of footwear from their customers and in fact, the show cause notice proceeds on the basis that only the amount reversed by debit in the credit account from 1-9-1996 to April, 1997 has been charged from the customers. For the period 23-7-1996 to 31-8-1996, the show cause notice itself recognises that the assessees have been reversing Modvat credit proportionately on a prorata basis on inputs used in the manufacture of exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the section says is this: the amount collected by a person/manufacturer from the buyer of goods as representing duty of excise shall be paid over to the State; even if the tax collected by the manufacturer from his purchaser is more than the duty due according to law, the whole amount collected as duty has to be paid over to the State; if on the assessment being made it is found that the duty collected and paid over by the manufacturer is more than the duty due according to law, such surplus amount shall either be credited to the Fund or be paid over to the person who has borne the incidence of such amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B. It is obvious that if in a given case, the manufacturer has collected less amount ....