2008 (4) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of invoice books. The Central Excise Officers recorded the statement dated 9-1-2001 of Smt. Nirmal Jhelum, Director of the Appellant-Company. Show cause notice dated 27-4-2004 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 2,55,528/- on the basis of invoice books, which is called as parallel invoices. It is also proposed penalty on the Appellant-Company and its Director. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the proceedings against the Appellant and its Director. Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby Adjudication Order was set aside and confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 2,55,528/- and imposed penalty of equal amount on the Appellant Company and also imposed penalty of R 5,000/- on Smt. Nirmal Jhelum, Director of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the two separate sets of invoice books were found at the Appellant's premises, which were called as parallel invoice. Smt. Nirmal Jhelum, Director of the Appellant-Company in her statement dated 9-1-2001, stated that due to change of Purchase Order Rates and involvement of Sales Tax on such rates, they had to use two sets of invoices. It is seen that the Adjudicating Authority conducted inquiries through the Central Excise Authorities at destination's end. For proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the findings of the Adjudicating Authority is reproduced below "16. I have examined the invoices issued from the invoice books and found that invoices bearing serial no.1 to 5 have been issued to the same customers with the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of regarding supply of extra packing material by the customer, purchase of extra raw material or mode of despatch in relation to goods alleged to be clandestinely removed, the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice are not substantiated." 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not disputed the above findings of the Adjudicating Authority. It has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that in the invoices bearing serial numbers 1 to 5 with rectangular seal, the duty debit particulars shown as entry nos. 7, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively do not match with debit entries in RG-23-C, Part-II and, therefore, the debit entries shown in the invoices bearing rectangular seal are fake. Ld. DR demonstrated the difference between the two sets of i....