https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54919 The appellant availed a concessional duty rate under Notification No. 108/95 for supplying electrical machinery, leading to a demand for differential duty and penalties. The error in the certificate issuance by the competent authority was found to be the cause of the underpayment, not wilful misconduct. The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 11A did not apply, setting aside the demand for the extended period and nullifying the penalty. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner was directed to calculate the short levied duty for the normal period, adjusting it from the deposit and returning any excess to the appellant. en-us Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:18:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54919 The appellant availed a concessional duty rate under Notification No. 108/95 for supplying electrical machinery, leading to a demand for differential duty and penalties. The error in the certificate issuance by the competent authority was found to be the cause of the underpayment, not wilful misconduct. The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 11A did not apply, setting aside the demand for the extended period and nullifying the penalty. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner was directed to calculate the short levied duty for the normal period, adjusting it from the deposit and returning any excess to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54919