2004 (12) TMI 563 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act can be imposed when duty has been paid before the issuance of a show-cause notice.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), not contesting duty confirmation but challenging penalty and interest imposition under Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that since the duty was paid before the show-cause notice was issued, penalty and interest should not apply, citing a Tribunal decision in the case of CCE v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. The Revenue referred to the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, where the Allahabad High Court ruled that penalty imposition is independent of the show-cause notice timing.

The core issue was whether penalties and interest can be levied when duty is paid before the show-cause notice. The Tribunal considered various precedents, including the decision in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, where the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court case of CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, where the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee. Following the precedent set by the Larger Bench in the Machino Montell (I) Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that if duty is paid before the show-cause notice, penalty and interest are not sustainable. Consequently, the imposition of penalty and interest was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

The judgment, delivered by Vice-President S.S. Kang, clarified that the timing of duty payment in relation to the show-cause notice issuance is crucial in determining the applicability of penalties and interest under the Central Excise Act. By aligning with established legal precedents and the decision in the Machino Montell (I) Ltd. case, the Tribunal upheld that when duty is paid before the notice, penalties and interest cannot be imposed. This ruling provides clarity on the issue and ensures a fair application of the law in similar cases in the future.