2010 (2) TMI 1027 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - Rule 5 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 - Held that - Rule 5 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 has imposed an obligation on the assessee to give information regarding receipt of subject goods and maintain records. That Rule does not encompass a situation not embodied therein - not only stay application is to be allowed but also appeal should be disposed of without keeping the same pending when the law does not provide further scope for debate for imposition of penalty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 regarding imposition of penalty.
2. Jurisdiction of Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in imposing penalty for breach of law.
3. Proper foundation for imposing penalty in penalty proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 regarding imposition of penalty:
The appellant's counsel argues that Rule 5 does not provide for imposing a penalty against an allegation made under that rule invoking Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The counsel contends that the appellant should have been charged under Rule 27, which deals with breaches of law and their consequences. The absence of an opportunity for rebuttal under the respective rule, which is the foundation for levying a penalty, renders any penalty imposition invalid. The Tribunal emphasizes the importance of thoroughly examining the Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the relevant rules. Rule 5 mandates the assessee to provide information and maintain records, but it does not cover situations not explicitly mentioned. The Tribunal highlights that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require a proper charge in the show cause notice for rebuttal, failing which the adjudication would be inadequate.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in imposing penalty for breach of law:
The Tribunal clarifies that Rule 27 acts as a residuary provision for addressing breaches of the law not specifically penalized under the statute. Rule 27 does not extend its scope to encompass violations of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rule 2001. The absence of provisions allowing the adoption of rules from other provisions under Rule 27 prevents the automatic invocation of jurisdiction not expressly provided or implied by the law's scheme.

Issue 3: Proper foundation for imposing penalty in penalty proceedings:
The Tribunal emphasizes the need for a proper foundation in penalty proceedings, ensuring that the show cause notice clearly outlines the civil and legal consequences of the alleged breach, providing the noticee with an opportunity for rebuttal. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the show cause notice did not adequately address the issues beyond its scope, leading to an inadequate adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal allows the stay application and disposes of the appeal in favor of the assessee, as the law does not offer further room for debating the penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements and legal provisions while imposing penalties, ensuring fairness and justice in the adjudicatory process.