2005 (3) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the manufacturer of plastic toys for sending plastic granules to a job worker.
2. Interpretation of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the manufacturer of plastic toys for sending plastic granules to a job worker, who was previously issued a show cause notice demanding duty on the granules used in manufacturing exempted toys. The Tribunal had dropped the case against the job worker due to the demand being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the manufacturer had not discharged the duty liability, leading to the imposition of the penalty by the original Authority. The manufacturer contended that no duty was demanded from them, and there was no finding that the goods were liable for confiscation. The advocate relied on previous judgments to argue against the penalty imposition, emphasizing that penalty should not be imposed if no duty is confirmed or if goods are not liable for confiscation.

2. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the demand against the job worker had been set aside, and there was no finding regarding the liability of confiscation of the disputed goods by the original or Appellate Authority. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty could not be imposed on the manufacturer under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the manufacturer and allowed the appeal. This judgment highlights the importance of establishing duty liability and confiscation of goods before imposing penalties under the relevant rules, ensuring a fair and justified application of penalties in excise matters.