2010 (7) TMI 379 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty ground for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act or under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 not contained in ground of appeal - no appeal by the assessee against the penalty - no relief can be given to them

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal to enhance penalty quantum under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and restore penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty Quantum under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q
The appeal filed by the Revenue sought to enhance the penalty quantum determined by the lower appellate authority under Section 11AC and restore the penalty under Rule 173Q. The case involved a matter of clandestine removal of excisable goods based on interception of a vehicle loaded with such goods. The original authority found suppression of clearance value by the respondent, leading to a duty demand and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties, prompting the Revenue to appeal for restoration. The appellant argued that penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were mandatory, citing legal precedents and Supreme Court judgments. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of valid grounds or reasons presented by the appellant to establish penalty imposition under Section 11AC or Rule 173Q against the respondent. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the lower appellate authority were maintained, and no relief was granted to the respondent.

Issue 2: Legal Arguments and Precedents
The appellant referenced Section 11AC and legal judgments to support the argument that penalties under this provision were mandatory and not discretionary. The appellant also opposed the waiver of penalty under Rule 173Q, citing a Supreme Court judgment that emphasized the mandatory nature of penalties under this rule. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish valid grounds for penalty imposition under Section 11AC or Rule 173Q against the respondent. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence or arguments supporting the imposition of penalties based on fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts as required by the law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, maintaining the penalties imposed by the lower appellate authority under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. The decision was based on the lack of valid grounds presented by the appellant to justify the penalties against the respondent. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing legal grounds for penalty imposition under relevant provisions, highlighting the importance of evidence and legal arguments in such cases.