2008 (5) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty on allegations of clubbing of clearances.
2. Reduction of duty amount and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Appeal for further reduction of penalty amount before Tribunal.
4. Dispute over the extension of benefit of cum-duty price and penalty reduction by the appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a show cause notice issued to the appellants for the confirmation of duty demand based on the clubbing of clearances. The Addl. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand along with penalties against the appellants.

2. The appellants appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who reworked the duty amount by extending the benefit of cum-duty price. The personal penalties were also reduced significantly in favor of the appellants.

3. Subsequently, the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal seeking further reduction in penalty amount. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Asst. Commissioner for reconsideration based on the re-quantified duty amount.

4. In the de novo proceedings, the Asst. Commissioner reduced the duty amount by extending the benefit of cum-duty price. However, he found no grounds to further reduce the penalties, stating that the earlier penalty reductions by the Commissioner (Appeals) were sufficient.

5. The Revenue challenged the Asst. Commissioner's decision by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority, in the impugned order, denied the benefit of cum-duty price to the appellants and increased the penalty equivalent to the duty amount, contrary to the previous penalty reductions.

6. The final judgment highlighted that the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals), which granted the benefit of cum-duty price and reduced penalties, was not appealed against by the Revenue. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to deny the benefit or increase penalties in the present impugned order. The impugned order was set aside, and the original order was restored in favor of the appellants.