2003 (12) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d both sides. The appellants took credit of Rs. 13,874.88 on the impugned goods on 20-7-1995. However, the credit taken was not the correct amount as the said amount represented sales tax whereas the excise duty amount was Rs. 57,812/-. The appellants claim that this was a clerical mistake which was corrected by taking supplementary credit on 12-1-1996. The concerned Superintendent issued a direct .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ise Official though he has countersigned the impugned invoice. The rules do not prohibit correcting such mistakes. On the other hand, Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 require all assessees to maintain accounts and registers correctly. As such, there was no necessity for asking the appellants in the first place to reverse the amount of supplementary credit taken by them. I also find that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X