Invoice and record-keeping inconsistency under Central Excise rules justified penalty, but not cancellation of registration.

Inconsistencies between statutory RG 23D entries, invoices and actual despatches were treated as a contravention of Rule 57GG because the records showed sale in one name while private records reflected despatch to another, creating risk of double Modvat credit and revenue loss; the penalty under Rule 173Q was sustained. Cancellation of the registration certificate was not supportable under Rule 174(11) because that provision applies only to breaches of registration conditions or specified convictions, and not to every other rule violation. The order cancelling registration was therefore set aside, while the penalty for the invoicing and record-keeping breach remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants contravened Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by issuing invoices and maintaining RG 23D entries inconsistently with actual despatches, warranting penalty under Rule 173Q; (ii) whether cancellation of the registration certificate was permissible under Rule 174(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for such contravention.

Issue (i): whether the appellants contravened Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by issuing invoices and maintaining RG 23D entries inconsistently with actual despatches, warranting penalty under Rule 173Q.

Analysis: The record showed that in the statutory RG 23D account the appellants had shown sale and despatch in the name of one person while the private records reflected despatch to another person in some cases. Such inconsistency necessarily resulted in improper invoicing and the possibility of Modvat credit being taken twice, leading to loss of revenue. The quantity involved was also significant. On that basis, the contravention of Rule 57GG was established and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was considered reasonable.

Conclusion: The contravention of Rule 57GG and the penalty under Rule 173Q were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether cancellation of the registration certificate was permissible under Rule 174(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for such contravention.

Analysis: Rule 174(11) permits revocation or suspension of registration only where the holder or his employee breaches conditions of the Act or the rules relating to registration, or is convicted of the specified offences. The breach established in the case was of Rule 57GG, not of any condition of registration under Rule 174 or of the registration certificate itself. Since the alleged default did not fall within the grounds contemplated by Rule 174(11), the cancellation of registration could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the registration certificate was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalties for violation of the invoice and record-keeping requirement were sustained, but the order cancelling the registration certificate was unsustainable and was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration under Rule 174(11) can be revoked or suspended only for breach of the conditions of registration or for the specified convictions, and not for every other contravention under the Central Excise Rules.

---