2016 (7) TMI 1380 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - - Held that - the issue is covered by judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles v. CCE Indore 2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where in the identical set of circumstances the demand of duty and interest was upheld and penalty was set aside - the appellant was contesting the earlier show cause notice and started following the decision once it was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. Thus the contention of ld. DR is devoid of force - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty amounting to ?1,30,67,986 short paid during April 2008 to November 2008.
2. Liability to pay interest on the confirmed duty amount.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rules 25, 26, and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Imposition of penalties on Noticee No. 2 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
5. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.
6. Contesting a show cause notice and liability to penalty.

Analysis:

1. The judgment confirmed the Central Excise duty amounting to ?1,30,67,986 short paid by Noticee No. 1 during the period from April 2008 to November 2008. The confirmation for recovery was made under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The liability to pay interest on the confirmed duty amount was also established as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Penalties were imposed on Noticee No. 1 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rules 25, 26, and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Additionally, penalties were imposed on Noticee No. 2 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

4. The judgment referenced previous cases to establish the applicability of precedents in similar situations. It mentioned the case of Audi Automobiles v. CCE, Indore and another case involving the appellant where penalties were set aside following a similar demand and circumstances.

5. The argument presented by the ld. DR regarding the liability to penalty due to non-payment of duty after the show cause notice was contested was considered. However, the tribunal found that the appellant started following the decision after it was adjudicated by the authority, indicating a valid reason for not paying duty earlier. Therefore, the contention of the ld. DR was deemed devoid of force.

6. In conclusion, the tribunal decided to follow the precedents cited in the judgment and allowed the appeals to the extent that the penalties imposed were set aside, considering the circumstances and the appellant's actions following the adjudication of the show cause notice.