Clandestine removal and excise duty evasion upheld on duplicate invoices, parallel billing, and unaccounted stock evidence

Clandestine removal and excise duty evasion were upheld on the basis of seized invoices, stock verification and statements recorded under section 14. The Court accepted the concurrent factual findings that the assessee used a duplicate transporter copy, maintained a parallel invoice book and issued fake invoices, with excess unaccounted stock supporting the charge of evasion. As no material was produced to dislodge those findings or show any error in the computation of duty or penalty, the challenge to the demand, penalty under section 11AC and rule 25 failed and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the findings of clandestine removal and evasion of excise duty, based on the seized invoices, stock verification and statements recorded under section 14, called for interference; and whether the duty demand and penalty under section 11AC and rule 25 were unsustainable.

Analysis: The assessee was found transporting cement on the strength of a duplicate transporter copy of invoice No. 242, while the departmental verification showed the existence of a parallel invoice book and multiple fake invoices. The truck driver, the authorised signatory and the director gave statements supporting the departmental case, and the stock verification recorded by the authorities showed excess unaccounted stock. The Court accepted the concurrent factual findings that the assessee was attempting to evade duty through forged invoices and a parallel set of bills. No material was shown to dislodge the factual conclusions or to demonstrate any error in the calculation of duty or penalty.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. The demand, penalty and the concurrent orders of the authorities below were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

---