2017 (9) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-II. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that manufacturer appellant was engaged in manufacturing Kraft paper, Writing and Printing paper falling under Chapter sub Heading Nos.4804.90 and 4802.90 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 28.11.2003 appellant informed the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities that they intended to avail exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE, dated 10.06.2003 and from 28 January, 2004 they actually started their commercial production and cleared the goods at nil rate of duty availing said Notification. Subsequently the appellant sold their goods under DGS&D rate contract. The condition in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t representing duty of excise is shown separately in the invoices raised on the buyer and collected from the buyer the provisions of Section 11D cannot be invoked. They further stated the fact that price was inclusive of excise duty is also not relevant unless the amount of excise duty is separately shown in the invoices. They have further brought contention in the show cause notice to the notice of Original Authority that there was a remark in the invoices which stated that  excise duty exempted under Notification No.49/2003. The appellant further contended that the appellant was not liable to pay duty since they were eligible to avail full exemption under the said Notification and therefore the question of passing of burden of excise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch indicated that any duty paying documents established that they had collected Central Excise Duty more than they were required to pay and they were not required to pay excise duty and they did not collect more amount from purchaser in the name of Central Excise Duty and therefore, the provisions of Section 11D were not applicable in their case. Further he has relied on this Tribunal's Final Order in the case of Mayfair Polymer Pvt. Ltd. v/s CCE, Ahmedabad, reported at 2009 (234) E.L.T. 663 (Tri.- Ahmedabad) and Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd. v/s CCE, Jaipur-I, reported at 2003 (152) E.L.T. 392 (Tri.-Delhi). He further submitted that in Para-9 of Final Order in the above stated case of Mayfair Polymers Pvt. Ltd. it was held that in respect....