2008 (3) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in duty payment under Compounded Levy Scheme.
2. Confirmation of demands and penalties by Dy. Commissioner.
3. Appeal filed with Commissioner (A) challenging the order.
4. Commissioner (A) modifying the order and setting aside demands and penalties.
5. Impugned grounds of the Commissioner (A) order.
6. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal challenging the Commissioner (A) order.
7. Interpretation of provisions under Section 3A and Rule 96ZP.
8. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments in similar cases.
9. Tribunal's decision on the appeal and remand to Commissioner (A).

Analysis:
1. The case involves a discrepancy in duty payment by a company engaged in manufacturing excisable goods under the Compounded Levy Scheme. Short payment of duty led to issuance of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) by the Dy. Commissioner for recovery of the unpaid duty and imposition of penalties.
2. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the demands under Rule 29ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with interest and imposed penalties equal to the amount of duty under Rule 96ZP(3)(ii) of the same rules. The Dy. Commissioner noted that the recovery of duty was under Rule 96ZP and not under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. The company filed an appeal with the Commissioner (A) challenging the Dy. Commissioner's order. The Commissioner (A) modified the order and set aside the demands and penalties, citing inconsistencies in the SCNs and the order. The Commissioner (A) also reduced the penalty amount in one instance due to lack of intent to evade duty.
4. The grounds of appeal against the Commissioner (A) order included arguments related to the invocation of Section 3A and Rule 96ZP for demanding duty, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments to support the case.
5. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the case and found that the Commissioner (A) erred in setting aside the demands on technical grounds, stating that the allegations in the SCNs were clear and there was no discrepancy in invoking different provisions of law.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (A) for a decision on merit, overturning the decision of setting aside the demands and penalties.

This detailed analysis covers the issues surrounding the discrepancy in duty payment, the legal proceedings at various stages, the interpretation of relevant provisions, the application of Supreme Court judgments, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal.