TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 896
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 11D and 11DD of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri J.P. Khaitan (Senior Advocate) , Shri Ghorawal ( Advocate) and Shri Sourav Bagaria (Advocate ) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri J.P. Khaitan submitted that appellant is manufacturing Railway wagons & railway wagon parts for the Indian Railways which are exempted from payment of duty under Sl. No. 207 and 238 of exemption notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1/3/2002 as amended. The appellant is getting couplers and bogies manufactured from its sister unit at Belgharia. That appellant's sister concern availed CENVAT Credit but since couplers/bogies are exempted amounts under Rule 6 (3) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules/Rule 57CC o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ( Tri-LB). He made the Bench go through para 8 and 9 of this case law to argue that amounts paid under Rule 57 CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, cannot be recovered as per the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was his case that provisions of Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules are identical to the provisions contained in Rule 6 (3) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Ld. Advocate also made the Bench go through para 2 of CBEC Circular No. 870/8/2008-CX dated 16/5/2008 to argue that Larger Bench decision in the case of Unison Metal Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I has been accepted by the Department. 3. Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the stand taken by the Adjudicating au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 11D makes it clear that what is required is that amounts collected as duty should not be retained by the manufacturers and should be deposited with the revenue. 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 sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 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 as repres....