Penalty on registered dealer invoices for duty-paid goods was unsustainable absent intent to aid inadmissible credit.

Penalty on a registered dealer for issuing invoices for duty-paid goods without bringing them into the registered premises was held unsustainable. Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) applied only where wrong particulars were entered with intent to help a buyer claim inadmissible duty credit, and no such allegation was made because the invoices reflected the actual duty paid. Rule 209A also could not apply, as there was no basis to infer liability to confiscation in respect of duty-paid goods sold at the same duty amount. The delayed notice and regular monthly returns further supported the absence of a penalty basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed on a registered dealer under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for issuing dealers' invoices in respect of duty-paid goods without bringing them into the registered premises.

Analysis: The appellants were registered dealers dealing in duty-paid goods, had issued invoices reflecting the duty actually paid, and had been filing monthly returns regularly. The department was aware of their functioning, yet the show cause notice was issued belatedly in relation to an earlier period. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) could arise only if wrong particulars were entered with intent to facilitate the buyer in availing inadmissible duty credit. No allegation was made that excess duty was shown or that any inadmissible credit was sought to be facilitated. For Rule 209A also, there was no basis to infer liability to confiscation in respect of duty-paid goods sold at the same duty amount.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable under either Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) or Rule 209A.

---