Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)

Section: 3D,4(2)

Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944

Section: 11

Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005

Section: 11

(a) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--- ----Ss.3-D & 4(2)---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S.11---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.11---Central Excise General Order 14 of 1969---Collection of excise duty etc.---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Period July, 1994 to October, 2003---Refund of Central Excise Duty was claimed by stating that the same was recovered in excess to what was due to be paid by placing reliance on the of Supreme Court; that excise duty recovered for the second time was not passed on to the consumer as alleged in the orders because declared price as embossed on the container was not challenged; that the same price inclusive of Central Excise Duty also advertised in the newspaper; and S.3(D) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the subject of passing incidence could be invoked under the mis-apprehension of the provision of the Act; that retail price for each bottle was legibly and prominently indicated which price the consumer was supposed to pay; and that incidence of excess payment was not passed on to the consumer; and bar of limitation under R.11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not applicable because the excess duty was collected by the department illegally and the payment was made not by inadvertence, error or misconstruction but because of the fact that Revenue was made to make the payment---Revenue contended that duty as collected by the department had ultimately been passed on to the consumers; that onus to prove that incidence of Central Excise Duty had not been passed on to consumers lay on the taxpayer as required under subsection (3) of S.3D of the Central Excise Act, 1944; that taxpayer was under obligation to have brought on record the very label put on the bottles regarding price declared as embossed on it; and that taxpayer's contention that provisions could only be invoked where duty had been collected under misapprehension of the provisions of the Act was totally misconceived---Validity---Claim of the taxpayer was purely based on the idea of an afterthought because the duty was regularly paid by the taxpayer in accordance with the Central Excise General Order No.14 of 1969 during the said period whereas…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492