2005 (9) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Central Excise duty recovery, penalty imposition, and confiscation of assets.

Central Excise Duty Recovery:
The case involved the removal of inputs without proper accounting, leading to a shortage noticed by officers. The notice sought recovery of Central Excise duty on illicitly cleared inputs. The Jt. Commissioner confirmed the duty amount and imposed penalties on the assessee and the partner. The CCE (A) limited the appeal to penalties under Rule 173Q(1) and Section 11AC, setting aside one penalty and reducing the other. The Tribunal upheld the duty recovery, emphasizing the admission of selling inputs without reversing credit.

Penalty Imposition:
Penalties were imposed under various rules, including Rule 173Q and Rule 209A. The CCE (A) set aside one penalty and reduced another, considering the duty payment. The Tribunal restored the penalty under Rule 173Q(1) to Rs. 25,000, emphasizing the necessity of imposing penalties for non-accountability of inputs.

Confiscation of Assets:
The proposal for confiscation of assets was not upheld by the Jt. Commissioner, leading to the inability to impose a penalty under Rule 209A on the partner. Since no liability for confiscation was found, penalties related to confiscation were not upheld.

Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal referenced legal precedents like Zunjarao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. UOI & Others and CCE, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (I) Ltd. to support its decisions on duty recovery, penalty imposition, and confiscation of assets.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal allowed the partner's appeal in full, the assessee's appeal regarding penalty and interest, and the Revenue's appeal concerning the penalty under Rule 173Q(1). The judgments were pronounced and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.