2011 (2) TMI 484 - HC - Central Excise

Quentum of penalty - Discretion - Since, Revenue is not challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the grinding room/enclosure is part and parcel of the immovable property and no duty is leviable thereon - Therefore, the duty levied has to be proportionately reduced - Therefore, the contention that without reducing the duty amount the penalty could not be imposed on the face of it is incorrect. However, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 25,000/- on the ground that the assessee being young entrepreneur that they were eligible for seeking exemptions as well as for waiver of duty - It cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty is illegal - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's order on duty levied for grinding room/enclosure.
2. Reduction of penalty amount by CESTAT under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Challenge to Tribunal's order on duty levied for grinding room/enclosure:

The appeal before the High Court challenged the Tribunal's decision that no duty is leviable on the grinding room/enclosure as it is considered part of immovable property. The appellant did not contest the duty on manufacturing grinding equipment but sought exemption for the grinding room/enclosure, arguing it was constructed as a soundproof enclosure with specific features like MS Square Tubes, mineral wool, ventilation, and exhaust systems. The Tribunal, based on precedents like M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills v. CCE and Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited v. CCE, concluded that the grinding room/enclosure is part of immovable property, thus exempting it from duty. Consequently, the duty amount was to be recalculated excluding the grinding room/enclosure, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the grinding room/enclosure being part of immovable property justifies the exemption from duty, and the penalty reduction was reasonable considering the circumstances.

Issue 2: Reduction of penalty amount by CESTAT under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944:

The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal included whether the CESTAT was correct in reducing the penalty amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether such reduction was permissible without a corresponding reduction in the duty amount. The High Court noted that the Revenue did not contest the Tribunal's finding regarding the grinding room/enclosure's exemption from duty. Therefore, the duty levied had to be proportionately reduced. The Tribunal justified the penalty reduction to Rs. 25,000 based on the appellant's status as a young entrepreneur eligible for exemptions and duty waivers. The High Court found the penalty reduction reasonable and legal, given the circumstances, and rejected the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's discretion in reducing the penalty did not warrant interference.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the duty exemption for the grinding room/enclosure as part of immovable property and justified the reduction of the penalty amount to Rs. 25,000 based on the appellant's eligibility for exemptions and waivers. The appeal challenging these aspects was rejected, affirming the Tribunal's order.