2011 (9) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise

Mandatory Penalty 11AC - Domestic Electrical Appliances - Duty Paid goods for reprocessing - Cleared goods other than brought in - penalty levied - Held that - Mandatory penalty is imposable only in the case involving fraud, collusion. Respondent explained mistake occurred in packing due to change over of staff Further, all the transactions have been duly registered and accounted for in the books of accounts maintained by the respondent. Appeal of revenue rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Departmental appeal against duty demand, interest, redemption fine, and penalty reduction.

Analysis:
The case involved a departmental appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur. The appellate authority upheld duty demand, interest, and redemption fine, while reducing the penalty imposed. The respondent, a manufacturer of domestic electrical appliances, brought duty paid goods for reprocessing but cleared different goods, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 34,596/-. The penalty under Section 11AC was reduced from Rs. 34,596/- to Rs. 15,000/- due to a mistake in the packing section caused by a shift change.

The main issue raised in the appeal was whether the appellate authority had the power to reduce the penalty after the original authority imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 11AC. The respondent argued that the mistake was bona fide and explained to the authorities, justifying the penalty reduction. The lower appellate authority reduced the penalty after considering the circumstances, leading to the department's appeal against the reduction.

The adjudicating authority had proposed penalties under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC, imposing an equivalent penalty under Section 11AC. However, the appellate authority reduced the penalty to Rs. 15,000/- based on the absence of elements necessitating an equivalent penalty. Mandatory penalty is only required in cases involving fraud, collusion, suppression, willful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty payment. Since these elements were not present, the appellate authority's decision to reduce the penalty was upheld, as all transactions were duly registered and accounted for by the respondent.

The judgment concluded that the lower authority's reasoning was sound, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the departmental appeal for lacking merit. The penalty reduction was justified based on the circumstances and absence of mandatory penalty elements, leading to the decision in favor of the respondent.