2004 (8) TMI 534 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for not maintaining records under Rule 173Q.
2. Applicability of Rule 226 for non-production of records.
3. Commissioner's authority to impose penalty under Rule 173Q when duty demand is dropped.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Rule 173Q for not maintaining records, despite dropping the duty demand against the appellant. The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as Rule 173Q requires an intention to evade duty, which was not established in this case. The penalty was set aside, emphasizing that non-maintenance of records did not result in duty evasion.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that Rule 226, which prescribes a penalty of Rs. 2,000 for non-production of records, should have been applied instead of Rule 173Q. The Tribunal agreed, stating that Rule 226 should have been invoked as there was no evidence of intentional duty evasion due to record-keeping lapses. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 173Q was deemed inappropriate.

Issue 3: The Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty under Rule 173Q despite dropping the duty demand was challenged. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner cannot raise new grounds for penalties not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. Since the duty demand against the alleged abettor was dropped, the penalty on the appellant was deemed unjustified. The penalty was set aside, highlighting that penalties must be based on the allegations in the Show Cause Notice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant, emphasizing that penalties should be proportionate to the alleged violations and supported by evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The judgment clarified the application of specific rules for penalties related to record-keeping and duty evasion, ensuring fair and justified enforcement of regulations in the case.