https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263897 Amounts collected from buyers as excise duty but not remitted to the Government were held payable to the Central Government under Section 11D, because invoices, purchase orders and buyer statements showed that the appellant charged duty at the contracted price while paying duty only at a concessional rate. The maintenance of two sets of invoices supported a finding that the excess duty amounts were deliberately retained, so the penalty under Rule 173Q was sustained. Confiscation of goods was, however, set aside because the goods were still within the factory premises and had not left the place of manufacture, making confiscation unjustified on those facts. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263897 Amounts collected from buyers as excise duty but not remitted to the Government were held payable to the Central Government under Section 11D, because invoices, purchase orders and buyer statements showed that the appellant charged duty at the contracted price while paying duty only at a concessional rate. The maintenance of two sets of invoices supported a finding that the excess duty amounts were deliberately retained, so the penalty under Rule 173Q was sustained. Confiscation of goods was, however, set aside because the goods were still within the factory premises and had not left the place of manufacture, making confiscation unjustified on those facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263897