2011 (11) TMI 294 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty in terms of Rule 13(2) read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act - Modvat credit claimed as an input in respect of the values of Tatoos - Adjudicating Authority for the earlier period have held that there was no mala fide intention in availing Modvat credit and thus penalty is not leviable - Revenue has not challenged the said order Held that - Tribunal has not given any finding as to why the penalty is imposable when the revenue has accepted the order of the Adjudicating Authority for the earlier period. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the question as to whether any penalty is imposable keeping in view the earlier order of the Adjudicating Authority and the extent & nature of default, if any, committed by the appellant. - Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the appellants related to interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellants when the Department did not challenge the non-imposition of penalty by the Adjudicating Authority.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The High Court noted that the assessee raised two substantial questions of law, but only issues (iii) and (iv) were considered, as per a previous Division Bench judgment. The Tribunal imposed a penalty on the appellants concerning the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier found no mala fide intention in the Modvat credit claim for the period before September 2001. The revenue did not challenge this order. For a subsequent period, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, imposing a penalty and declaring the claimed Cenvat credit illegal. The High Court observed that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for imposing the penalty when the Adjudicating Authority had found no mala fide intention previously. The Court held that the penalty of an equal amount as the duty was not justified, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Issue 2:
Regarding the second issue, the High Court considered whether the penalty imposition was justified when the Department had not appealed the non-imposition of penalty by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court referenced a Division Bench judgment and a Supreme Court ruling to emphasize that the imposition of penalties should be based on specific conditions and not be automatic. The Court found that the Tribunal did not provide reasoning for imposing the penalty despite the absence of a challenge by the revenue against the earlier order. Consequently, the High Court held that the penalty of an equal amount as the duty was not sustainable. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a reassessment considering the previous order and any defaults committed by the appellant.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the penalty imposed by the Tribunal and directed a reconsideration based on the earlier findings and the nature of any defaults. The judgment highlighted the importance of justifying penalties based on specific conditions and previous decisions, rather than imposing them automatically.