2008 (8) TMI 717 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The respondent, M/s. Devplast Ltd., requested a decision on the application on merits. The Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake in the final order, contending that the adjudicating authority did not invoke Rule 25, and therefore, the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was not imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order, stating that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Rule 25. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the issue of unaccounted goods found in the factory being liable for confiscation and the assessee being liable for penalty under Rule 25. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the appellant.

In the final order, the Tribunal recalled the previous order and directed that the matter be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the crucial issue of whether the unaccounted goods found in the factory were liable for confiscation and the assessee was liable for penalty under Rule 25. As a result, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention and disposed of the matter by remanding it back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration.

The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had only considered the quantum of penalty under Rule 25 but had not given any finding on whether the assessee was liable for penalty under the rule. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the specific issue raised by the Revenue regarding the liability of the assessee for penalty under Rule 25. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to address the crucial issue of the liability of the assessee for penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider whether the unaccounted goods found in the factory were liable for confiscation and if the assessee was indeed liable for penalty under Rule 25.