Improper transport documentation for excisable goods sustained penalty where scrap invoices showed impossible vehicle details.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was upheld where scrap invoices carried vehicle numbers that were non-existent or belonged to scooters and motorcycles, making the claimed transport of ship-breaking scrap implausible. The supplier failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancies in the transport documentation. On the same factual pattern, similar duty demand and penalties had already been sustained against other scrap suppliers, supporting the conclusion that the appellant was concerned with the improper movement and documentation of excisable goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was justified on the supplier of scrap for issuing invoices containing vehicle numbers that were not consistent with actual transport of goods.

Analysis: The invoices issued by the appellant showed vehicle numbers which were either non-existent or belonged to vehicles such as scooters and motorcycles, making it implausible that ship-breaking scrap could have been transported in those vehicles. The appellant did not satisfactorily explain these discrepancies. The earlier decision in the connected main matter had already upheld similar duty demand and penalties against other scrap suppliers on the same factual pattern. On these facts, the appellant was held liable as a person concerned with the improper movement and documentation of excisable goods.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

---