2003 (9) TMI 600 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC.
- Challenge regarding penalty amount being equivalent to duty confirmed for the period prior to insertion of Section 11AC.
- Consideration of penalty imposition under Rule 173Q(1) and Rule 226.
- Assessment of penalty amount in relation to the duty involved and circumstances of the case.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the demand of Central Excise duty and an equivalent penalty imposed by the Commissioner on M/s. U.P. State Irrigation Workshop Division. The Appellant did not contest the duty demand but challenged the penalty amount, arguing that it was excessive considering the period involved and the nature of their workshop being part of the State Government. The Appellant's representative contended that the penalty imposed was not justifiable as it was equivalent to the duty confirmed for a period before the insertion of Section 11AC in the Central Excise Act.

In response, the learned SDR argued that once the duty was found payable for the last five years, the penalty under Rule 173Q(1), Rule 226, and Section 11AC was justifiable. The SDR maintained that the penalty under Rule 173Q could exceed the duty amount involved and defended the imposition of an equivalent penalty to the duty confirmed. The Tribunal considered both arguments and upheld the duty demand while agreeing with the SDR that the penalty was applicable under Rule 173Q(1) and Rule 226. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants had cleared goods without informing the Central Excise department or paying the duty, establishing suppression on their part.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced an earlier order dated 14-9-2001, which indicated that penalties would be leviable under Section 11AC for the period after 28-9-1996, demonstrating the establishment of suppression against the Appellants. The Tribunal highlighted that under Rule 173Q(1) at the relevant time, the penalty could be up to three times the value of the excisable goods involved. However, considering the circumstances, such as the Appellants being a workshop of the U.P. State Irrigation department and manufacturing parts for State-owned tubewells, the Tribunal deemed the penalty imposed to be excessive.

In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the Appellants to pay a reduced penalty of Rs. 50,000 only, acknowledging the specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the workshop. The appeal was disposed of with this revised penalty amount, concluding the matter in accordance with the Tribunal's decision.