2007 (1) TMI 335 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Consideration of timely payment of duty and interest for penalty imposition.
3. Application of the first proviso to Section 11AC for reduced penalty.
4. Impact of prior deposit on penalty calculation.
5. Compliance with payment requirements under Section 11AC for penalty avoidance.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of penalty under Section 11AC:
The appeal was remanded by the High Court to reconsider the penalty imposed under Section 11AC. The Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,98,867 to Rs. 25,000, citing the interpretation of Section 11AC in a previous case. The High Court clarified that the penalty specified should be considered as a minimum penalty as per legal provisions.

Issue 2 - Timely payment of duty and interest for penalty imposition:
The appellant contended that they had paid the entire duty and interest within 30 days of the order under Section 11A(2) of the Act. They argued that the penalty amount was also deposited within the specified time frame, thus fulfilling the payment requirements.

Issue 3 - Application of the first proviso to Section 11AC:
The first proviso to Section 11AC stipulates that if duty and interest are paid within 30 days of the communication of the order, the penalty shall be 25% of the duty determined. This provision aims to encourage prompt payment of dues by reducing the penalty liability.

Issue 4 - Impact of prior deposit on penalty calculation:
The department argued that the earlier deposit made during the proceedings could not be considered as payment of duty as determined by the subsequent order. However, the Tribunal considered the entire amount deposited, including the penalty, as compliant with the payment requirements.

Issue 5 - Compliance with payment requirements under Section 11AC:
The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had paid all dues, including penalty, within the specified time frame, thereby meeting the conditions set forth in Section 11AC. The reduced penalty of 25% of the duty determined was deemed sufficient, and no further penalty was warranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the reduced penalty of 25% of the duty determined under the first proviso to Section 11AC, considering the timely payment of dues by the appellant. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, as the payment requirements under Section 11AC were met, absolving them from further penalty liability.