Case Note & Summary
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate appealed against an order of CESTAT, Mumbai dated 31 August 2020, which allowed the appeal of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (respondent) against an Order-in-Original dated 29 November 2013 confirming duty demand under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent was registered for clearance of petroleum products and cleared Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) at concessional duty under notifications. The department alleged non-compliance with BIS specifications and issued show cause notices demanding duty of Rs.13,37,17,740/- for April 2003 to June 2004, also demanding recovery under Section 11D for duty collected from customers but not deposited. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty of Rs.1 crore. CESTAT set aside the demand, leading to this appeal. The revenue proposed questions of law: (a) whether CESTAT was right in setting aside demand under Section 11D merely because duty attributable to ethanol was not shown separately in invoice and was composite cum-duty price; (b) whether CESTAT considered all findings of adjudicating authority. The court examined the facts and legal provisions.
Headnote
A) Central Excise - Section 11D - Duty Collection - The issue pertains to demand of duty under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 for ethanol blended petrol where duty was not separately shown in invoice but included in composite cum-duty price. The court considered whether CESTAT erred in setting aside the demand on this ground. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether CESTAT was correct in setting aside demand under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 merely because duty attributable to ethanol was not shown separately in invoice and was part of composite cum-duty price.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text.
Law Points
- Section 11D of Central Excise Act
- 1944
- duty collected from customers must be deposited
- composite cum-duty price
- ethanol blended petrol
- concessional rate notification
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 70
Central Excise Appeal No. 6 of 2022
G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain
Jitendra B. Mishra, Dhananjay B. Deshmukh for appellant; Padmavati Patil, Kiran Chavan for respondent
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against CESTAT order setting aside demand under Section 11D.
Remedy Sought
Revenue sought to set aside CESTAT order and restore demand under Section 11D.
Filing Reason
Revenue aggrieved by CESTAT order allowing respondent's appeal against Order-in-Original confirming duty demand under Section 11D.
Previous Decisions
Order-in-Original dated 29 November 2013 confirmed demand; CESTAT order dated 31 August 2020 set aside demand.
Issues
Whether CESTAT was correct in setting aside demand under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 merely because duty attributable to ethanol was not shown separately in invoice and was part of composite cum-duty price.
Whether CESTAT considered all findings of the adjudicating authority.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that CESTAT erred in setting aside demand under Section 11D as duty was collected from customers as part of composite price and not deposited.
Respondent contended that duty was not separately shown in invoice and hence Section 11D not applicable.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned in the provided text.
Judgment Excerpts
This Appeal under section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges an order dated 31 August, 2020 passed by the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai whereby the respondent’s appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 29 November, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Navi Mumbai has been allowed.
The appellant-revenue has proposed following questions of law for determination of this Court: (a) Whether the CESTAT was right in setting aside demand of duty under Section 11 D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 merely because duty attributable to Ethanol is not shown and recovered separately in the invoice and it’s composite cum duty price? (b) Whether the CESTAT has considered all the findings of the adjudicating authority, who has confirmed the demand of duty under Section 11 D of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Procedural History
Show cause notices issued for period April 2003 to June 2004 demanding duty of Rs.13,37,17,740/-. Adjudicated confirming demand with interest and penalty. Respondent appealed to CESTAT which remanded for de novo adjudication. On remand, Order-in-Original dated 29 November 2013 confirmed demand. Respondent appealed to CESTAT which set aside demand by order dated 31 August 2020. Revenue filed present appeal under Section 35G.
Acts & Sections
- Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 11D, Section 35G
- Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Chapter 27
