Tampering with excise records and post-detection duty payment did not shield the assessee from penalty.

Penalty remained sustainable where tampering with excise records and sale invoices was found to have facilitated removal of goods and duty evasion. The Tribunal held that payment of duty after detection of the manipulation was not a voluntary deposit made before the show cause notice in a manner that would negate penalty. Authorities cited for leniency were found distinguishable on facts, and the order dropping penalty was set aside while the adjudicating authority's penalty was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained where the assessee had deposited the duty amount before issuance of the show cause notice, but only after tampering with statutory records and invoices came to light.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessee had tampered with excise records and sale invoices, including debit entries and copies of invoices, to facilitate removal of goods and evade duty. The payment made after detection of such tampering was not treated as a voluntary deposit. The earlier authorities relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) were held inapplicable because the facts were materially different.

Conclusion: Penalty was rightly exigible and the order dropping penalty was unsustainable; the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was restored.

---