TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it, it was found that the appellant had received turnkey projects in energy sector from various clients including an award from the Madhya Pradesh Power transmission Company Limited, Jabalpur [MPPTCL] This award had four separate contracts with a clause specifying that breach of one contract would constitute breach of the other three as well. The first contract was for supply all equipment and materials required for substations, etc. The second contract was for civil work, yard levelling, area fencing, yard fencing, cable trench building etc. The third contract was for installation/ erection, testing and commissioning including performance testing for sub-station. The fourth contract was for installation, erection, testing and commissioning including performance testing of transmission lines. 3. Dispute in this appeal is regarding the first contract. As per the tender document of MPPTCL, manufacturers of equipment could bid and others could also bid. Separate formats were quoting prices with instructions for manufacturer and non-manufacturer bidders were specified in the tender document. 4. MPPTCL had no control over the manner in which the bidder quotes the price. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oices in the name of MPPTCL for the same goods. These invoices were in two different forms. In some invoices, the amount of excise duty was shown separately and in other invoices, the total amount only has been indicated as per the accepted prices for supply of materials. 8. During audit, it was found that the amount indicated in the Accepted prices and represented as excise duty for various goods was much higher than the actual amount of excise duty paid on those goods by the manufacturers. Even in cases where the invoices were issued by the appellant separately indicating the excise duty, the amount indicated as excise duty, by the appellant and collected from MPPTCL was much higher than the actual amount of excise duty paid. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through sample invoices issued by the appellant and the corresponding invoices issued by the manufacturers in the name of the appellant. These demonstrate that the amount collected as excise duty by the appellant from MPPTCL was much higher than the actual amount of excise duty paid. For instance, at page 229 of the compilation of documents submitted by the appellant, it's invoice no. BIG-001 dated 06.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise duty was assessed or determined on such excisable goods; (v) The appellant had not collected any amount as representing excise duty. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Sangam (India) Ltd., reported in [2018 (364) ELT 292 (Tri.-Del.)] (ii) Mayfair Polymers P. Ltd. [2009 (234) E.L.T. 663 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] (iii) Pitambar Coated Paper Ltd. reported in [2003 (152) E.L.T. 392 (Tri. - Del.)] (iv) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in[2017 (358) E.L.T. 833 (Tri.-Del)] (v) Alpha Helical Pumps Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore, [2025 (1) TMI 535 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] (vi) Mahesh Chemicals Allied Industries and Suresh Goyal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods & Service Tax, Rohtak [2024 (8) TMI 309 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] (vii) M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2019(6) TMI 735 CESTAT CHEΝΝΑΙ] (viii) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Versus CCE and CCE Versus Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 815 CESTAT CHENNAI] (ix) M/s M.B. Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods were supplied. In some invoices the excise duty was shown separately and in other invoices the total amount as per the accepted prices were indicated including the excise duty. In either case, what is clear is that the appellant had invoiced MPPTCL and collected some amount as excise duty either indicating it separately in the invoice itself or as per the excise duty indicated in the accepted prices of its bid. We have no manner of doubt that the MPPTCL has paid this amount to the appellant as excise duty in both cases even if it is not indicated separately in some invoices. The question which arises is if the actual amount of excise duty paid was less than the amount indicated in the accepted price list/ invoices to MPPTCL could the appellant pocket the difference or was it bound to deposit the differential amount in the government account. We note that, in all running bills, the appellant represented to the MPPTCL that the statutory taxes and duties have been deposited to the concerned authorities. Thus, not only had the appellant indicated the amount of excise duty separately in the accepted price list but it also re-affirmed in its running bills that all the statutory taxes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se may be, shall be adjusted against the duty of excise payable by the person on finalisation of assessment or any other proceeding for determination of the duty of excise relating to the excisable goods referred to in sub-section (1) and sub-section (1A). (5) Where any surplus is left after the adjustment under subsection (4), the amount of such surplus shall either be credited to the Fund or, as the case may be, refunded to the person who has borne the incidence of such amount, in accordance with the provisions of section 11B and such person may make an application under that section in such cases within six months from the date of the public notice to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for the refund of such surplus amount." 21. As is evident section, 11D(1) applies to persons who are liable to pay duty under Act and this would not apply to the appellant because it was not a manufacturer. Section 11D(1A) would apply to a person who has collected any amount in excess of the duty be determined and paid on any excisable goods or has collected any amount as representing duty of excise. The appellant is certainly a person who has collected an amount....