Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that despite a clear finding that the invoices issued by the Appellant did not show any duty of excise separately, the Ld. Commissioner held that since the price of the goods reflected in the invoices are same as those in the purchase orders or other internal documents, the Appellant collected the duty amount from the customers. The Ld. Commissioner failed to correctly appreciate the factual and legal positions in the instant case. The Appellant in the standardized purchase orders or other confidential internal documents showed bifurcated price, though, as time and again reiterated by various employees in their statements recorded, a lump-sum price is negotiated with the customers. Thus, when duty of excise was never represented to the customers, and the invoices under which goods were sold and price thereof collected having never shown any amount as excise, it is completely untenable to allege that the Appellant "collected" excise duty from its customers.

12. He also drawn our attention to the chart annexed to the SCN on the basis of which the calculation of Excise Duty has been made out by the Department. The said chart is absolutely confusing as in most of the cases the element of Excise Duty has not been shown in any of the internal documents and we are unable to understand how the element of Excise Duty has been shown for the calculation of Excise Duty when there are no documents available with the Department to show that the element of Excise Duty is being represented even in these internal documents.

14. The Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the Revenue and submitted that the internal documents like purchase orders, order forwarding memo and contract review sheet clearly shows that they have collected the amount of duty from their customers although the said amount of duty has not been shown in their invoices. He submitted that during the recording of their statements the key persons of the Appellant Company has categorically submitted that they have collected the amount of duty where they have paid the amount of duty. He further submitted that the uniform pattern of pricing of all the manufacturing units clearly establish that the Appellant Company has collected the amount of duty by making adjustment in their prices. He also submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has rightly upheld that even though the element of duty has not been shown in the invoices but collection of duty is established from the internal documents. He further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has rightly held that the internal documents like purchase order, order forwarding memo and contract review sheet are prepared in the routine course of business and therefore, they are essential part of their accounting system and hence, sufficient to establish that the element of excise duty is being collected from the customers. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 11D do not provide any bar of limitation and the entire demand has been made under provisions of Section 11D. Therefore, the demand is not barred by limitation. The Ld. Commissioner has rightly confirmed the demand along with interest. He heavily supported the contentions of the Order of the Ld. Commissioner.

18. As per our opinion, all these documents are internal documents which have been prepared by the Appellant for the convenience of the business and none of these documents can be said to be as statutory documents showing representation of Excise Duty. We have also gone through with the judgements cited by the Ld. Counsel in his defence in case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur reported at 2003 (158) E.L.T. 833 (Tri.); Poddar Industrial Corporation Vs. CCE, Patna reported at 2003 (158) E.L.T. (Tri.); Pitambar Coated Paper Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I reported at 2003 (152) E.L.T. 392 (Tri.) and HPCL Vs. CC, Kondla reported at 2007 (219) E.L.T. 408 (Tri.) and is of the firm opinion that for invoking the provisions of Section 11D(1A) it is essential that the element of Excise Duty must have been shown in the invoices. In the present case, there is no dispute that the element of Excise Duty has not been shown by the Appellant in their invoices. Therefore, purchase order, order forwarding memo and contract review sheet are only the internal documents and no demand of duty can be raised on the basis of the said documents.