Full Judgment
2. The applicants were clearing various varieties of papers and paying duty as per rate applicable with effect from 1-3-93. Exemption was granted to the paper manufactured by them under Notification No. 30/93 dated 28-2-1993 amending Notification No. 48/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91.
Consequent to the issue of Notification No. 30/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93, the applicants submitted revised price list for approval effective from 28-2-93. Then, they again submitted another price list on 15-5-93 increasing the price of their product. These price lists were approved by the competent authority. During this period, they have issued the invoices for the paper cleared at the rate approved under the price list. Therefore, it is claimed that they have not charged any amount in excess of the value of the goods in the garb of excise duty. Hence, the credit was granted for recovery of the amount.
3. On behalf of the revenue, it was contended that from 28-2-93, the applicants were issuing invoices showing prices inclusive of duty.
Therefore, they have charged the duty from the customers and have not passed on the benefit of exemption granted to them.
4. We have considered the submissions. We find that from 28-2-93 onwards, the applicants have increased the price of their product and the increased price was duly approved by the competent authority. They have charged the same price from their customers as is evident from the invoices. Even if it is treated as inclusive of the excise duty, the excise duty was nil. Therefore, the applicants had not prima facie charged any amount in excess of the revised price, where the excise duty was shown as nil. Therefore, prima fade the provisions of Section 11D are not applicable in the present case. We, therefore, give unconditional stay to the applicants for hearing the appeal. Since the amount involved is substantial, the appeal is posted for hearing on 19th April, 2006.