1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2008. Commissioner, Central Excise .vs. M/s. Polyfilms Industries & another ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Ms. T. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED: APRIL 27, 2009. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent. After hearing for sometime, it appears to us that the answer to the questions depends on whether the 8% amount recovered by the respondent no.1 from buyer was recovered by way of excise duty or as any other charge. Ms. T. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant, relies on two invoices bearing the dates 21.5.2001 and 16.2.2001, from which it appears that the respondent no.1 has charged 8% as duty. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, submits that there are concurrent findings 2 of the authorities below that the 8% was not recovered by way of excise duty and, therefore, such findings cannot be disturbed. We are, however, of the view that the concurrent findings cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside as perverse in view of the two invoices relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant which show that the respondents have recovered the amount of 8% by way of excise duty. If so, the respondent no.1 would be liable to proceeded against under Section 11-D of the Central Excise & Tariff Act. However, we find that this aspect requires investigation. We accordingly set aside the judgment in appeal and remand the matter back to the CESTAT for a fresh decision on the applicability of Section 11-D in accordance with the law after considering the entire record of invoices. Order accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. J.