2008 (8) TMI 662 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on clearances of final products.
2. Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 181/86-C.E.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC.
4. Invocation of extended period for demand confirmation.
5. Applicability of penalty under Section 11AC for transactions pre-dating its enactment.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Rallis India Ltd. challenging the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 11,026 not paid on clearances of final products during a specific period. The goods were cleared to certain customers who did not use them as fertilizers, contrary to the condition of the exemption under Notification No. 181/86-C.E. The original authority imposed the demand and penalty under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act '44, which was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellants argued that there was no intention to evade duty, thus the demand confirmed using an extended period was not justified. They also contended that penalty under Section 11AC could not be imposed as the transactions occurred before its enactment. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants knowingly availed inadmissible exemption on the consignments, thus rejecting the plea of no suppression of facts. The penalty imposed was deemed incorrect under Section 11AC but applicable under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

3. After careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the misuse of exemption by the appellants but deemed the equal penalty imposed as too harsh. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 11,026 to Rs. 2,000. Despite this leniency in penalty, the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to exemption conditions and the consequences of availing inadmissible benefits under the Central Excise Act. It also clarifies the applicability of penalties under specific sections based on the circumstances of the case, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory provisions to avoid legal repercussions.