Duplicate invoice evasion justified duty demand, denial of cenvat credit, and penalty relief was refused.

Deliberate clearance of goods through duplicate invoices after crossing the exemption threshold justified confirmation of differential central excise duty, as the record showed intentional evasion rather than bona fide confusion. The authorities also rejected cenvat credit for the disputed clearances because no evidence established receipt of materials in the factory, and the penalty was sustained in the same factual setting. The appellate challenge therefore failed, and the impugned order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of differential central excise duty was sustainable where the assessee had cleared goods through a double set of invoices after crossing the exemption limit; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to cenvat credit in relation to the disputed clearances and whether penalty could be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of differential central excise duty was sustainable where the assessee had cleared goods through a double set of invoices after crossing the exemption limit.

Analysis: The facts showed a deliberate practice of issuing duplicate invoices for removal of goods without payment of duty after the exemption threshold had been reached. The case was not one of bona fide confusion arising from a change in duty liability on an otherwise exempt product, but of intentional evasion supported by documentary evidence. The cum-duty benefit had already been extended at the notice stage.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to cenvat credit in relation to the disputed clearances and whether penalty could be interfered with.

Analysis: The claim for cenvat credit had been examined and rejected by the authorities below on the ground that no evidence established receipt of the materials in the factory. In the same factual setting of deliberate evasion through double invoicing, there was no basis to grant relief from the imposed penalty.

Conclusion: The denial of cenvat credit and the penalty were sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety and the impugned order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Deliberate clearance of goods through duplicate invoices to evade duty, when supported by corroborative evidence, justifies confirmation of duty demand and denial of ancillary credit or penalty relief.

---