Tribunal overturns duty demand, interest, penalty due to lack of evidence. Commissioner confirms duty, interest, drops penalty.

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant company for alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods through parallel invoices due to lack of corroborative evidence. The Department's case was found to lack thorough investigation and supporting proof, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the duty demand and interest but dropped the penalty on the Director.

---

---

Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation with interest and penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 for clandestine removal of excisable goods through parallel set of invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty against the appellant company for alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods through the use of parallel set of invoices. The Directorate of Anti-evasion conducted searches at the factory and office premises based on intelligence regarding evasion of Central Excise duty. Documents seized revealed forged copies of Central Excise invoices and challans-cum-proforma invoices indicating clearances of goods without proper duty payment. Statements confirmed the use of fictitious debit entry numbers on one set of invoices to evade duty. The appellant argued that goods were covered by Central Excise Invoices, and duty was paid when there was a balance in the PLA account. However, the Department pointed to statements confirming evasion and discrepancies in ledger entries. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty against the company but dropped the penalty on the Director. The appellant contended that no corroborative evidence was provided, and the Department failed to investigate thoroughly, including cross-examining employees and verifying sales and removal of goods. The Tribunal found the Department's case lacking corroborative evidence and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

Key Points:
- Search conducted based on intelligence regarding duty evasion.
- Seized documents revealed forged copies of invoices for clearance of goods without proper duty payment.
- Statements confirmed use of fictitious debit entry numbers to evade duty.
- Appellant argued goods were covered by Central Excise Invoices, and duty was paid when balance in PLA account.
- Department pointed to discrepancies in ledger entries and confirmed evasion.
- Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty against the company.
- Appellant contended lack of corroborative evidence and insufficient investigation by the Department.
- Tribunal found Department's case lacking corroborative evidence and set aside the impugned order.
- Appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

---