Dual invoices and price misdeclaration attract excise penalty and defeat waiver of interest under the Act.

Use of two sets of invoices, with one set understating the price for central excise purposes, coupled with incorrect declarations under Rule 173C, constituted misdeclaration and suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was upheld. The same finding also meant that waiver of interest under Section 11AB(2) was unavailable, because the demand arose from suppressed and misdeclared price particulars. The appeal consequently failed, with both the penalty and interest demand sustained on the adjudicated duty liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was attracted on the facts of the case; (ii) Whether waiver of interest under Section 11AB(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was attracted on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had issued two sets of invoices, one reflecting higher amounts and another used for Central Excise purposes reflecting lower amounts. The declarations filed under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 did not disclose the relevant details correctly. On these facts, the element of misdeclaration and intention to evade duty was established, bringing the case within the penal provision.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rightly upheld and no further reduction was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether waiver of interest under Section 11AB(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available.

Analysis: Since the demand arose from misdeclaration of price through the use of two sets of invoices, the basis for seeking waiver of interest was absent. The finding on suppression and misdeclaration meant that the statutory liability to interest remained unaffected.

Conclusion: Waiver of interest under Section 11AB(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee's conduct justified both the penalty and the interest demand on the adjudicated duty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Use of dual invoices and non-disclosure of correct price particulars constitutes misdeclaration and suppression sufficient to attract penalty under Section 11AC and to deny waiver of interest under Section 11AB(2).

---