Pre-notice duty payment defeats penalty and interest, but clandestine clearance and forged invoices still sustain confiscation and personal penalties.

Unaccounted goods, forged invoices and corroborating statements were treated as evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal, so the duty demand, confiscation of goods and redemption fine were upheld. Because the duty had been paid before issue of the show cause notice, the penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were set aside. Penalties under Rule 26 were sustained against the accountant and power of attorney holder, as their direct participation in the illicit clearance and receipt of goods was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty, confiscation of goods and redemption fine were sustainable on the facts found. (ii) Whether penalty and interest under the central excise provisions could be sustained where duty had been paid before issue of show cause notice. (iii) Whether penalties under the rules could be imposed on the accountant and power of attorney holder connected with the illicit clearance.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty, confiscation of goods and redemption fine were sustainable on the facts found.

Analysis: The goods and records were found in an unaccounted state, and forged invoices and statements of connected persons supported the finding of clandestine manufacture and removal. Non-accountal of inputs and finished goods was treated as indicative of evasion, and confiscation was held permissible on that basis. The redemption fine followed the confiscation of the seized goods.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, confiscation of goods and redemption fine were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty and interest under the central excise provisions could be sustained where duty had been paid before issue of show cause notice.

Analysis: The duty had been discharged before issuance of the show cause notice. On that basis, the mandatory penalty and interest provisions were not applied, and the prior payment was treated as sufficient to displace those consequences.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under the rules could be imposed on the accountant and power of attorney holder connected with the illicit clearance.

Analysis: The persons penalised were directly involved in the transaction and connected with the illicit manufacture, clearance and receipt of the goods. Their role was treated as distinct and independently punishable under the rules.

Conclusion: The penalties under Rule 26 were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The order sustained the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and personal penalties, while granting relief from the penalty and interest linked to the pre-notice payment of duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid before issue of show cause notice, penalty and interest linked to that duty are not sustainable, but unaccounted goods, forged invoices and direct participation in illicit clearance justify confiscation and personal penalties.

---