TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 217-222/2012 dated 08.03.2012, the appeals filed by the assessee were remanded with a direction to the original authority to verify the invoices and also see whether the principle laid down in the case of M/s. HPCL Vs. CCE [2003 (163) ELT 391 (Tri. - Mum.)] would be applicable. Pursuant to the remand order, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 13.11.2012 after denovo adjudication again confirmed the demand. Against this, the appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein, upheld the confirmation of the demand. Hence, this appeal. 2. The Ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted by him that the period of dispute is from July 1996 to September 2000. The allegation is that the appellant collected duty of excise and has not deposited the same to the Government as required under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is submitted that the price of the petroleum products were determined under the administrated price mechanism (APM). The unit selling prices of the petroleum products covered under the administrated price mechanism were the same regardless of the source of supply. Prevailing prices u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1991, by Section 103 of the Finance Act, 2000, had no application to the period in question, the Tribunal held as follows : "There is no dispute before us that demand sustained by the Commissioner was in respect of the goods which were not manufactured by the appellant. Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court the constitutional validity of Section 11-D, before its amendment was under challenge alongwith other provisions. In order to uphold the constitutionality of the provisions the High Court read down the expression "every person‟ in sub-section (1) of Section 11-D as the manufacturer/producer as also the expression „every person‟ appearing in Section 28-B of the Customs Act as the importer. It was the above view that has been expressed by this statutory amendment under Section 103 of the Finance Act 2002 with retrospective effect from 20-9-91. In the present case, we are concerned with the demand for a period from July 1997 to August 2000. Under these circumstances, the appellant‟s contentions are only to be accepted. No demand can be raised against the appellant under Section 11-D as it is not the manufacturer of the concerned goods. In the result,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t/company is manufacturer of petroleum product, therefore, is liable to pay the difference of duty, as made by Shri Sushrut Dharmadhikari is wholly unsustainable. Neither in the show cause notice nor in the proceedings held before the appellate authority is it indicated that the respondent‟s establishment at Bhitoni District-Jabalpur is the manufacturing unit, on the contrary in the show cause notice issued by the respondent itself as contained in Annexure-E, dated 22-2-2001, it is indicated that M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is having their depot at Bhitoni P.O. Shahpura District-Jabalpur are registered dealers with the Central Excise Department. They are engaged in the business of distribution of petroleum products. In Para-2 of the show cause notice, it is said that the noticee are receiving imported Furnace Oil from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. C/o IOTL (Indian Oil Tanking Ltd.) Navghar, District-Raigad Mumbai. It is nowhere stated that the respondents are manufacturing and selling the products from their depot at Bhitoni, on the contrary, it is seen that they are receiving the products from the manufacturers as indicated in Para-2. For which duty is paid at the manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee before the Tribunal is as follows : "In these appeals, the assessees have argued that to demand an amount from a person under Section 11D, the following conditions have to be satisfied : (a) The person should be liable to pay duty. (b) The amount had to be collected by any person on excisable goods. (c) That person should have collected any amount from the buyer of such excisable goods in any manner as representing the duty of excise." 5. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as follows : "(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 liable to pay duty under this Act or the rules made thereunder, and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the rules made thereunder from the buyer of such goods in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. (2) ................. (3) .........