2011 (2) TMI 987 - AT - Central Excise

Quantum of penalty - penalty imposed under Rule 96ZQ(5) - Original Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty equivalent to the duty confirmed - Held that - Set aside the impugned order and remand all the appeals to Original Adjudicating Authority to decide upon the question of imposition of penalty and quantum thereof, after declaration of law by Hon ble High Court on the challenge to vires of Rule 96ZQ(5).

Summary

Issues:
1. Quantum of penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5) to be imposed.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of determining the quantum of penalty to be imposed under Rule 96ZQ(5). Initially, the Original Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty equivalent to the confirmed duty, which was later reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the appellant challenged a stay order. Subsequently, the Tribunal, in its Order, reduced the penalties to Rs. 5,000 in each case. The Revenue appealed against this decision to the High Court, resulting in a remand back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, during remand proceedings, set aside the impugned order and remanded all appeals to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a decision on the imposition of penalty after the declaration of law by the High Court on the challenge to the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5).

In a separate proceeding, the Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order that reduced the penalty, leading to a remand back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The present impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in de-novo proceedings rejected the appellant's appeal, holding that an equal amount of penalty is required under Rule 96ZQ(5). However, the Tribunal found that in light of the previous remand order, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a de-novo decision, along with the earlier remanded matter, based on the observations made in the previous remand order.

Overall, the judgment emphasizes the importance of following due process and legal procedures in determining the quantum of penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5), ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the law and previous orders issued by the Tribunal and higher courts.