https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30259 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 duty, the liability under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was deemed erroneous. The impugned order was held unsustainable in this factual scenario. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30259 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 duty, the liability under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was deemed erroneous. The impugned order was held unsustainable in this factual scenario. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30259