9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand on manufacturer is not justified when excess duty is collected by the dealers - E/1451/2004 - 206/2008 - Dated:- 7-3-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri J.P. Gregory, JCDR, for the respondent. [Order] - The original authority demanded an amount of Rs. 86,009/- under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to the first appellate authority, the appellant did not collect excess duty other than what was paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the department had limitations of jurisdiction to recover the excess duty collected by the dealers. The excess collection of duty by dealers was owing to the incorrect figures displayed in the invoices generated by the assessee for sale of goods from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 155 dated 18.06.2001. In this instant case, it is evident that our Dealer M/s. Pals Enterprises have collected an excess amount of Rs. 345.60 from M/s. Southern Auto Castings Pvt. Ltd., and he is under moral and legal obligation to deposit the said portion of the duty to the credit of the Central Government and not by us. All these mistakes occurred only because of our ERP system error. At last ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect that only the dealers collected the excess amount and not the appellant. In this factual situation, it is patently erroneous to fasten a liability on the appellants in terms of Section 11D whereas they were not found to have collected any amount representing the same as duty in excess of the actual duty paid. In the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
