2010 (10) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - show cause notice issued stated that the appellants had utilized cenvat credit towards the payment of duty but such credit had been accumulated during the period subsequent to the period for which amount of duty was sought to be paid - neither of the authorities below have arrived at any finding regarding the factual aspect of the said allegation against the appellants - Materials on record do not appear to have been analysed to ascertain the veracity of the said allegation. Being so and in the absence of any adverse finding to the appellants certainly lower appellate authority was not justified in imposing the penalty.

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 for contravention of Rule 8(1) due to default in fortnightly payment of duty.
2. Allegation of utilizing cenvat credit towards duty payment, accumulated after the period for which duty was sought.
3. Lack of findings by lower authorities on the factual aspect of the allegation.

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001:
The appeal stemmed from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Noida, where the lower appellate authority confirmed the original authority's decision but imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The penalty was imposed due to the appellants' default in fortnightly payment of duty. The lower appellate authority upheld the adjudicating authority's decision but proceeded to penalize the appellants for the contravention of Rule 8(1) of the erstwhile Rule 2001. However, the Tribunal found that there was no adverse finding against the appellants regarding this contravention. As a result, the imposition of the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside.

Issue 2: Allegation of Utilizing Cenvat Credit Towards Duty Payment:
The show cause notice alleged that the appellants had utilized cenvat credit for duty payment, which had accumulated after the period for which the duty was sought. However, neither the original authority nor the lower appellate authority provided any findings on the factual aspect of this allegation. The materials on record were not analyzed to verify the truth of the accusation. As a result, the lower appellate authority's decision to impose a penalty without establishing the veracity of the allegation was considered unjust. The appellants rightfully contested this aspect of the impugned order, leading to the Tribunal allowing the appeal and setting aside the penalty imposed.

Issue 3: Lack of Findings by Lower Authorities:
Upon reviewing the show cause notice and the orders of the lower authorities, it was evident that the only adjudication required was regarding the utilization of cenvat credit for duty payment. However, both the original authority and the lower appellate authority failed to make any findings on this crucial aspect. The absence of any adverse findings against the appellants meant that the imposition of the penalty by the lower appellate authority lacked a valid basis. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unwarranted and ruled in favor of the appellants by setting aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the imposition of the penalty under the Central Excise Rules, the allegation of utilizing cenvat credit, and the lack of findings by the lower authorities. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty was based on the absence of adverse findings and the failure to establish the veracity of the allegations, ensuring a fair outcome for the appellants in this case.

← Previous Next →