Case Law Details
The appellant (sic) is engaged in the manufacture of thinner wire from thicker wire by the process of drawing wire rods. They are availing CENVAT Credit on the input and paying excise duty on the final products i.e. drawn wire. The department’s case is that since at the relevant time, the drawing of wire did not amount to manufacture, the appellant’s activity is not excisable activity. Therefore, they were not supposed to charge the excise duty. Since they charged the excise duty and collected the same from their customers, the same is liable to be recovered under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty under section 11D. The appellant being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Therefore, the Revenue is before us.
2. Shri S.V. Nair, learned AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal, submits that since wire drawing activity was not amount to manufacture at the relevant time is not in dispute, they were not supposed to pay the duty and collect the same from the customers. Therefore, the amount collected by the appellant was not payable duty, hence the same is required to be credited in the Government’s account in terms of section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and perused the records. The demand was confirmed under section 11D, which reads as under:-
Section 11D. Duties of excise collected from the buyer to be deposited with the Central Government:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
