Penalty for improper invoicing requires proof of wilful or incorrect particulars; suspicion alone cannot sustain liability.

Penalty under Rule 209(bbb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof of wilful, wrong, or incorrect particulars in the invoices, or equivalent culpable conduct such as collusion; suspicion alone is insufficient. On the facts, the dealer had purchased scrap under invoices and resold it in the ordinary course of trade, and there was no proof of collusion with the supplier or of any false invoicing. The deletion of penalty was therefore correct and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209(bbb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was attracted on the respondent-dealer for issuing invoices for scrap purchased and resold in the ordinary course of trade.

Analysis: The respondent had received scrap under invoices and resold it to purchasers, who consumed it in manufacture. The finding of the appellate authority that the department had proceeded on assumptions and presumptions was upheld. In the absence of proof of collusion with the supplier or of any wilful, wrong, or incorrect particulars in the invoices issued by the respondent, the ingredients necessary to invoke Rule 209(bbb) were not established.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 209(bbb) was not attracted, and the deletion of penalty was correct.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed and the order setting aside the penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for improper invoicing requires proof of wilful or incorrect particulars or equivalent culpable conduct, and cannot rest on suspicion alone.

---