2026-VIL-1463-CESTAT-DEL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Collection of excise duty as representing duty but not depositing differential amount - Applicability of Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - During audit, it was found that the amount represented as excise duty in Appellant's invoices and accepted price list was much higher than the actual amount of excise duty paid by manufacturers on the goods. Appellant also furnished running bills with undertaking that all statutory taxes and duties have been deposited to the concerned authorities though the differential amount of excise duty was not deposited - Whether Appellant was liable to pay the differential amount collected as representing excise duty to the Central Government under Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - Section 11D(1A) covers any person who has collected any amount as representing duty of excise on excisable goods and is not limited to manufacturers. The expression "any person" in Section 11D(1A) is inclusive and applies to the appellant. The appellant had explicitly represented in its running bills that excise duty was deposited to the concerned authorities, making it abundantly clear that the amount was collected as excise duty. Since the actual excise duty paid by manufacturers was less than the amount indicated in appellant's accepted price list and invoices, the Appellant was required to forthwith pay the differential amount to the credit of the Central Government under Section 11D(1A) - The decisions cited by appellant were on different facts and did not support the appellant's contention. The facts of the present case clearly triggered the application of Section 11D(1A) - The impugned order confirming the demand under Section 11D(2) along with interest under Section 11DD is upheld. The appeal is dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page