2012 (1) TMI 30 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of power of Tribunal to grant statutory right to the assessee to deposit the amount of penalty u/s 11 AC of the Central Excise Act - Show-cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner raising the demand and imposing penalty did not indicate regarding the benefit of depositing the amount within 30 days Held that - Once an earlier order was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Act then the Tribunal was fully justified in granting one opportunity to the assessee to pay the amount of penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11 AC of the Act within a period of 30 days by earning the benefit of paying penal amount to the extent of 25% instead of amount equivalent to the amount of duty. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding penalty imposition and deposit.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's order granting the assessee the opportunity to pay penalty within 30 days at a reduced rate.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically focusing on the penalty imposition and deposit requirements. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal initially granted the assessee the statutory right to deposit the penalty amount under Section 11 AC. The provision allows for a penalty equivalent to the duty amount, but a reduced penalty of 25% is applicable if paid within 30 days of receiving the notice of demand. The original order by the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty without mentioning the benefit of the reduced penalty for early payment. This lack of clarity led to subsequent appeals and modifications by the Commissioner and the Tribunal.

2. The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision to grant the assessee the opportunity to pay the penalty within 30 days at a reduced rate. The Court acknowledged that the earlier orders did not align with the provisions of Section 11 AC, justifying the Tribunal's intervention to allow the assessee to avail the reduced penalty option. By providing the assessee with a chance to comply with the proviso to Section 11 AC within the specified timeframe, the Tribunal rectified the previous errors in the penalty imposition process. The Court found no legal flaws in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that it did not raise any substantial legal questions under Section 35 G of the Act.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the application of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning penalty imposition and payment deadlines. It highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the statutory right of the assessee to benefit from reduced penalties within the specified timeframe. The Court's decision upholds the Tribunal's rectification of the penalty amount, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal provisions in penalty imposition cases.