https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53262 Contemporaneous records and un-retracted admissions showed that goods were actually manufactured by one unit and cleared under another unit's invoices to remain within SSI exemption limits, so duty demand against the real manufacturer was sustained. A composite penalty on the manufacturer under both Section 11AC and Rule 173Q could not stand because Section 11AC was not in force for the relevant period, and that penalty was set aside. Permitting invoice misuse established abetment by the other unit, so penalty under Rule 209A was maintained but reduced to Rs. 5,000. en-us Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:05:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53262 Contemporaneous records and un-retracted admissions showed that goods were actually manufactured by one unit and cleared under another unit's invoices to remain within SSI exemption limits, so duty demand against the real manufacturer was sustained. A composite penalty on the manufacturer under both Section 11AC and Rule 173Q could not stand because Section 11AC was not in force for the relevant period, and that penalty was set aside. Permitting invoice misuse established abetment by the other unit, so penalty under Rule 209A was maintained but reduced to Rs. 5,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53262