TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant. On completion of the investigation, the show cause notice dated 2/2/99 was issued. The notice demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,21,360/- in terms of Section 11A and 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Notice also proposed confiscation of goods valued Rs. 1,50,840/- and a tempo van valued at Rs. 2,50,000/- apart from penalties. The issue involved is that the appellant has been paying Central Excise duty with concessional rate and whereas collected the full rate of excise duty from their buyers resulting in collection of excess amount towards excise duty and retaining the same without depositing to the Government. Goods worth Rs. 1,50,840/- alongwith their tempo was sought to be confiscated on the ground that the details of clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the applicability of Section 11D to their case. He pleaded that Section 11D will be applicable only when any amount is collected by the appellant representing Central Excise duty and not paying the same to the Government. It is not established by the Department that they have represented and collected any excise duty in excess of amount paid to the Government, from their buyers. They have paid applicable duty and collected the same from their buyers. The agreement for supplying oil filters is on cum-duty basis. Regarding confiscated of goods loaded in the tempo inside the factory, the learned Counsel pleaded that the goods have not left the factory and before completion of formalities the seizure of the goods and tempo with the presumption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Government. However, the facts of the case as revealed from the records indicate that the rate mentioned in the purchase order is per piece price + Central Excise duty of 10% or 13%. It is apparent that maintenance of two sets of same invoice as explained by learned AR and admitted by the appellant is a clear indication of method followed by the appellant for collecting extra amount in the name of Central Excise duty form their buyers. In this regard reliance can be placed on the facts corroborated by the Chief Manager of Escorts Ltd. (buyers) in his statement dated 28/8/1998. He categorically stated that they were paying unit rate + Central Excise duty @ 13%. The preparation of invoices in two sets with different details of assessable va....