2010 (6) TMI 406 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond 30 days - provisions of Section 11AC are not attracted since the goods have been cleared in contravention of Rule 8(3A), the provisions of Rule 25 applicable - provision of Section 11AC are not attracted and there was only delay in payment of duty and there was no clandestine removal, there is enough justification for reduction of penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Default in payment of Central Excise duty beyond the due date.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Justifiability of penalty amount.
4. Applicability of specific provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
5. Reduction of penalty amount due to delay in payment without clandestine removal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a manufacturer of Electrical Stampings who failed to pay Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 80,000/- by the due date as per Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant paid the duty after a delay of 73 days from the due date, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 8(3A) which mandates payment at the time of removal without utilizing Cenvat Credit in case of default beyond 30 days.

2. Following adjudication and appellate proceedings, a penalty of Rs. 4,36,980/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the default in payment of duty. The appellant contested the penalty amount citing financial difficulties and lack of intention to evade duty, seeking a reduction based on previous Tribunal decisions.

3. The appellant argued that penalties under Rule 27 or Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 should be limited to Rs. 5,000/- as per previous Tribunal decisions, considering the penalty equal to the duty amount as harsh. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that the penalty under Rule 25 was justifiable given the clear contravention of Rule 8(3A) and the deemed removal of goods without duty payment.

4. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to determine the correct application of penalties. It highlighted the significance of Rule 8(3A) in cases of default in duty payment, emphasizing that penalties under Rule 25 were appropriate in such instances. Specific cases were cited to distinguish the applicability of different rules based on the circumstances of each case.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, considering the absence of clandestine removal and the delay in payment without invoking Section 11AC. The decision aimed to balance the enforcement of penalties with the circumstances of the case, aligning with precedents that justified penalty reduction in similar situations.