ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appellants look credit of Rs. 13,874.88 on the impugned goods on 20-7-1995. However, the credit taken was not the correct amount as the said amount represented sales lax whereas the excise duty amount was Rs. 57,812/-. The appellants claim that this was a clerical mistake which was corrected by taking supplementary credit on 12-1-1996. The concerned Superintendent issued a direction for reversing this supplementary credit amount but on appeal his order was set aside and de novo adjudication was ordered by Commissioner (Appeals). On such de novo consideration, the original authority dropped the demand on the ground that the demand was not issued within six months of taking the supplementary credit. On Department’s appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the time limits under Rule 57-I and Section 11A will not apply to such ease and that the demand can be raised within six months from the date of order-in-appeal.
2. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I find that the appellants have merely corrected the clerical error by taking the right amount of credit which was initially taken wrongly and which was not delected even by the Central Excise Official though he has countersigned the impugned invoice. The rules do not prohibit correcting such mistakes. On the oilier hand, Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 require all assessecs to maintain accounts and registers correctly. As such, there was no necessity for asking the appellants in the first place to reverse the amount of supplementary credit taken by them. I also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in ruling that the lime limit prescribed under the Rules and the Act should not be applied, In all cases where demands have to be made and credit wrongly taken has to be reversed, it goes without saying that the time limits prescribed under the Rules and the Act have to be applied. On the other hand, there is no provision in the Law that the lime limit will apply from the date of the appellate order. As such, I find that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in law. I set aside the same and allow the appeal.