Duplicate invoice records without department intimation justified duty demand and penalty under excise invoice procedure.

Maintenance of two sets of invoices bearing the same serial number, without any cancellation intimation to the department, was treated as impermissible under the excise invoice procedure. The Tribunal noted that invoices recovered from the factory showed clearances under the same serial number in the name of the same and different customers, while duty had been debited only once in the statutory records. The explanation of confusion over sales tax was rejected, and the cited decisions were distinguished because the statutory cancellation procedure had not been followed and the documents were recovered from the premises. Duty demand and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand and penalty were sustainable where the assessee maintained two sets of invoices bearing the same serial number and no cancellation intimation was given to the department.

Analysis: The invoices recovered from the factory showed clearance of goods under the same serial number, both in the name of the same customer and in the name of different customers, while duty had been debited only once in the statutory records. The explanation that the duplicate invoices were prepared because of confusion regarding sales tax was not accepted. A manufacturer has no authority to maintain two sets of invoices with the same serial number, and if an invoice is cancelled the department must be informed and a fresh invoice issued with a different serial number. The Tribunal also held that the cited decisions were distinguishable because the present case involved recovery of statutory documents from the premises and the procedure for cancellation of invoices under the excise rules had not been followed.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were upheld, and the appeal failed.

---