2008 (3) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed as appellant did not collect excess duty; liability under Section 11D deemed erroneous. Impugned order unsustainable.

The appeal was allowed as it was found that only the dealers, not the appellant, collected the excess amount. As the appellant did not collect any excess ... Sale through depot - excess collection of duty by dealers because of incorrect figures displayed in the invoices generated by the assessee for sale of goods from the depots - – appellant, manufacturer did not collect excess duty other than what was paid – demand on manufacturer is not justified when excess duty is collected by the dealers Issues:1. Demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 19442. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 20023. Excess duty collection by dealers4. Jurisdictional limitations for recoveryAnalysis:1. The original authority demanded an amount under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the appellant, along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order, leading to the appeal.2. The appellant, a company, cleared products on payment of duty but due to an error in the computer system, wrong figures were mentioned in depot invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) found a contravention of Section 11D due to excess duty collection by dealers based on incorrect figures in the invoices.3. The appellant argued that the excess duty was collected by the dealers and not by them. They presented specimen invoices showing correct duty payable. The impugned order highlighted the appellant's acknowledgment of dealers collecting excess duty due to errors in their ERP system.4. The impugned order concluded that the excess duty collection was due to the appellant's defective invoices, leading to a contravention of Section 11D. The order was upheld based on the argument that the Department faced jurisdictional and limitation issues in recovering the excess duty from dealers, emphasizing the appellant's responsibility.5. However, the final finding was that only the dealers collected the excess amount, not the appellant. As the appellant did not collect any excess duty, the liability under Section 11D was deemed erroneous. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, stating that the impugned order was not sustainable in this factual situation.