https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104988 A Section 11D demand under the Central Excise Act requires proof that an amount was actually collected in excess of duty properly payable; on the facts stated, the invoices reflected a cum-duty price and the record did not support double collection, so the Section 11D demand failed. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also unsustainable once that recovery basis fell away. However, the duty shown on the invoices had to be recomputed using the Supreme Court-approved cum-duty formula, and the remaining notices were remanded for fresh determination on that correct basis. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104988 A Section 11D demand under the Central Excise Act requires proof that an amount was actually collected in excess of duty properly payable; on the facts stated, the invoices reflected a cum-duty price and the record did not support double collection, so the Section 11D demand failed. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also unsustainable once that recovery basis fell away. However, the duty shown on the invoices had to be recomputed using the Supreme Court-approved cum-duty formula, and the remaining notices were remanded for fresh determination on that correct basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104988