Abetment of clandestine removal attracts penalty where parties facilitate fake records, blank challans, or diversion of excisable goods.

Persons who knowingly facilitate clandestine removal or diversion of excisable goods by providing premises for paper transactions, signing blank challans, or manipulating records can incur penal liability as abettors under the central excise penal provisions. The text applies this principle to job workers whose premises were used to create a false job-work appearance and to purchasers who altered records to misstate the goods received. A plea of non-service of notice or order was rejected where there was no timely change of address and the record otherwise established active participation. The penalties on all participants were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the job workers who allowed their premises to be used for paper transactions and signed blank challans were liable for penalty for abetting clandestine removal of duty free yarn; (ii) whether the purchasers who received the goods and manipulated records to reflect incorrect specifications were liable for penalty, and whether the plea of non-service of notice/order to one purchaser displaced such liability.

Issue (i): whether the job workers who allowed their premises to be used for paper transactions and signed blank challans were liable for penalty for abetting clandestine removal of duty free yarn

Analysis: The duty evasion by the manufacturer was found to be established. The job workers were not treated as innocent intermediaries because the record showed that their premises were used to create a false appearance of job work, they had no real manufacturing facility, and they had signed blank challans that were later used to support the clearance narrative. This conduct amounted to active facilitation of the clandestine removal and satisfied the requirements for penal liability of abettors.

Conclusion: The job workers were rightly held liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (ii): whether the purchasers who received the goods and manipulated records to reflect incorrect specifications were liable for penalty, and whether the plea of non-service of notice/order to one purchaser displaced such liability

Analysis: The purchasers were found to have knowingly participated in the diversion of duty free raw material by manipulating documents to show receipt of grey fabrics of heavier GSM when lighter GSM fabrics were actually received. The plea of improper service was rejected because the record did not show timely communication of any change of address, and in any event the evidentiary material established active involvement in the manipulation of records for facilitating evasion of duty.

Conclusion: The purchasers were rightly held liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The penalties imposed on all appellants for facilitating the clandestine removal and diversion of duty free yarn were sustained, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Any person who knowingly facilitates clandestine removal or diversion of excisable goods by providing premises, signing blank documents, or manipulating records is liable for penalty as an abettor under the relevant central excise penal provisions.

---