2010 (9) TMI 1045 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against penalty imposed on Assistant Manager for repacking and relabelling of goods in Spare Parts Division.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against penalty
The appellant, an Assistant Manager in charge of Spare Parts Division, appealed against the penalty imposed by the original authority for repacking and relabelling duty paid parts of motorcycles and scooters. The dispute centered around whether such repacked and relabelled goods attracted excise duty. The original authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on both M/s HMSIL and the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty on the appellant, leading to this appeal.

Issue 2: Arguments
The appellant's advocate argued that the company had paid the dues as per the order, and the appeal was solely against the penalty on the appellant. It was contended that the appellant, as an employee and not the principal officer, was unaware that the repacking and relabelling amounted to manufacture. Upon being informed by officers about the duty liability, the appellant promptly arranged for duty payment. The advocate sought the penalty's removal based on lack of evidence showing the appellant's knowledge or intent to evade duty.

Issue 3: Legal Interpretation
The Tribunal considered whether the repacking and relabelling constituted manufacture, emphasizing that the appellant was not knowingly involved in any deliberate act leading to duty evasion. The original authority imposed the penalty based on the appellant's supposed responsibility for the manufacturing operation and his senior position in the company. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's lack of knowledge of excise law and procedures, coupled with his lack of diligence, did not warrant penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Notably, no evidence indicated the appellant's awareness of duty liability or intent to evade duty.

Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision
After reviewing the submissions and findings, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for sustaining the penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have erred in holding the appellant responsible for lack of diligence without sufficient evidence of knowledge or intent. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment focused on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's awareness of duty liability or intention to evade duty, leading to the reversal of the penalty imposed on the Assistant Manager. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing knowledge and intent when imposing penalties under excise laws, ultimately providing relief to the appellant in this case.