2026-VIL-282-CESTAT-BLR-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-282-CESTAT-BLR-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – SSI Exemption, Duty under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The appellant, an SSI unit, availed the exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 up to the value of Rs.150 lakhs. It is alleged that during the exemption period, the appellant had collected excise duty on the goods by raising commercial invoices indicating the price as inclusive of duty, which was proposed to be recovered under Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The Section 11D requires that any amount collected in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods as representing duty of excise shall be paid to the credit of the Government. In the present case, the invoices issued to the customers during the exemption period did not show any amount collected as representing excise duty. The appellant had collected a consolidated amount stating it as inclusive of excise duties, but did not show any specific amount as representing excise duty. Unless any amount is specifically collected representing as excise duty, Section 11D cannot be invoked - Non-profiteering is not contemplated under Section 11D, and the mere fact that the appellant did not pass on the benefit of exemption to the customers cannot be a ground to invoke Section 11D - The demand under Section 11D is set aside – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Inclusion of freight and loading/unloading charges in assessable value - The Department alleged that the appellant had short-paid excise duty by not including the value of cost of delivery/transportation in the assessable value, claiming the clearance as ex-factory – HELD - Except in the cases of NAPC and BPCL, no other evidence was placed on record by the Revenue to justify the clearances being on FOR basis. The sample invoices showed that the clearances were on ex-factory basis, and the transportation costs were shown separately, which were paid on behalf of the customers and recovered separately. In cases where the factory is the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is to be excluded from the assessable value. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the demand on this count - Delay in filing periodical returns - The appellant had duty amount due for the period October 2013 to December 2014, which was discharged partly through cash and partly through debiting the cenvat account. However, there was a delay in filing the periodical return due to the fault of the Chartered Accountant – HELD - The appellant had discharged the duty within the stipulated time, and the delay in filing the periodical return was attributable to the Chartered Accountant. Considering the fact that the appellant is an SSI unit, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return deserves to be condoned.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?