2007 (6) TMI 417 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are duty demand u/s 11A, penalty u/s 11 AC, and penalty u/s Rule 173Q imposed on the Appellant by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.

Appeal No. E/327/2000:
In this appeal, the Appellant, M/s. Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. (BBA), contested the duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The case involved the removal of aromatic chemicals without payment of duty to their sister unit and a job worker due to system failure. The Commissioner invoked a longer period of limitation and imposed penalties, but found no personal involvement of the Managing Director. The Appellant argued that there was no mala fide intention, as clearances were made under statutory documents, and the goods were eventually cleared on payment of duty. They cited case law to support their plea that penalties were not warranted in cases of technical breaches or bona fide belief. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, concluded that the demand beyond the normal period was barred by limitation, and as there was no suppression or fraud, the penalties were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the penalties were vacated.

Appeal No. E/286/2001:
In this appeal by the Revenue, they sought to impose penalties under Section 11AC for transactions prior to a specific date. However, it was acknowledged that penalty under Section 11AC could not be imposed for transactions before that date based on settled law. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.