2008 (3) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority demanded an amount of Rs. 86,009/- under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) from M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd. (CUL). Appropriate interest was demanded under Section11 DD of the Act and penalty equal to the amount demanded (CER) was imposed on the appellants under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owing to the incorrect figures displayed in the invoices generated by the assessee for sale of goods from the depots. He held that there was contravention of Section 11D and affirmed the order of the original authority as correct. 3. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Ld. JCDR for the department. The ld Counsel showed specimen invoices which showed the correct working and total duty pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Government and not by us. All these mistakes occurred only because of our ERP system error. At last we found the mistake and rectified the same in the subsequent periods. Therefore this was not repeated in the subsequent period.' It is evident that based on the defective invoices issued by the Appellant their dealers have collected excess duty amounts.  The argument of the Appellant that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X