2008 (4) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed, duty demand overturned for maintaining two sets of invoice books. Proper inquiry emphasized.

RR. PRODUCTS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision upholding duty demand and penalties against the Appellant for maintaining two ... Two separate sets of invoice books were found at the Appellant’s premises for same transaction - Appellant stated that due to change of Purchase Order Rates and involvement of Sales Tax on such rates, they had to use two sets of invoices - inquiries by Authorities at destination’s end, reveals that consignee in one set of invoice received the goods and duty was discharged thereon - no material of clandestine removal of the goods on the basis of the invoices – demand and penalty not justified Issues:- Discrepancy in maintaining two sets of invoice books- Allegations of duty evasion and penalty imposition- Adjudicating Authority's decision- Commissioner (Appeals) order challenged in appealAnalysis:The case involved discrepancies in maintaining two sets of invoice books by the Appellant, who manufactured Mosquitoes Insecticides Coils. Central Excise Officers found parallel invoices during a visit to the factory, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand and penalties. The Adjudicating Authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Revenue appealed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and penalties, leading to the Appellant filing an appeal challenging this decision.The Appellant argued that the separate invoice books were due to changes in purchase order rates, which was supported by the Adjudicating Authority's inquiries. The Appellant cited relevant Tribunal decisions to support their case. On the other hand, the Revenue reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, pointing out discrepancies in the invoices and RG-23 C Part-II Account entries.Upon review, it was found that both sets of invoices pertained to the same transactions, with the use of parallel invoices explained by the Appellant due to changes in purchase order rates and sales tax implications. The Adjudicating Authority's inquiry supported this explanation. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was based on the differences in the invoices, which were clarified by the Appellant and verified by the Adjudicating Authority. As a result, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was set aside, and the Adjudicating Authority's order was restored, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues of discrepancy in maintaining two sets of invoice books, duty evasion allegations, the Adjudicating Authority's decision, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order challenged in the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of proper inquiry and explanation in such cases to ensure a just outcome.