2003 (6) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of setting aside personal penalty imposed under Section 11AC by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Interpretation of Rule 57AD regarding differential duty on Pipes and Filters used in manufacturing Hand Pumps.
3. Calculation of duty @ 16% on Pipes and Filters value.
4. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 11AC.
5. Alleged mala fide intention to evade payment of duty.
6. Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions.

1. Justification of setting aside personal penalty:
The appeal questioned whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in annulling the personal penalty imposed under Section 11AC while confirming the duty demand against the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no intention to evade duty and thus set aside the penalty, a decision contested by the Revenue.

2. Interpretation of Rule 57AD:
The respondents, engaged in manufacturing Hand Pumps, PVC Pipes, and Filters, claimed that duty @ 8% was applicable under Rule 57AD for Pipes and Filters used in Hand Pump production due to common raw materials. The Revenue disputed this, asserting that Pipes and Filters were standalone final products, not subject to the rule.

3. Calculation of duty @ 16% on Pipes and Filters:
The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that duty @ 16% should apply to the value of Pipes and Filters, excluding other components like Pumps. This re-calculation was based on the nature of the products and their respective duty rates.

4. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 11AC:
The original adjudicating authority had levied a personal penalty on the respondents, which the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of any evidence indicating a deliberate intent to evade duty, leading to the penalty's annulment.

5. Alleged mala fide intention to evade payment of duty:
The Tribunal scrutinized the show cause notice and concluded that the demand was based on misinterpretation rather than intentional evasion. The respondents had disclosed their use of Rule 57AD and filed returns, indicating no malicious intent to underpay duty.

6. Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions:
The Tribunal referenced past judgments, including S.C.I. India Ltd. v. CCE and Tims Product Ltd. v. CCE, to support its decision. These cases highlighted that penalties were set aside when discrepancies arose from misinterpretation rather than deliberate evasion, aligning with the present scenario.

In summary, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to annul the personal penalty under Section 11AC due to the absence of evidence supporting intentional duty evasion. The interpretation of Rule 57AD, calculation of duty rates, and comparisons with prior Tribunal rulings were pivotal in resolving the issues raised in the appeal.