2011 (7) TMI 736 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Rule 25 of CER, 2002 - Voluntary payment of duty - on the ground that they purchased the MS ingots without documents - appellants did not challenge the confirmation of demand - The director Manoj Arya who looks after day today work of the factory in his statement recorded under Section 14 of CEA 1944 recorded on 6.5.2005 has voluntarily admitted that they have received 300MT ingots from M/s. Amar Ispat without cover of Central Excise invoice without payment of duty Regarding penalty - The only contention of the appellants is that no option has been given to them to pay penalty of 25%. Ld. JDR has countered the contention on the ground that appellants have not paid interest in this case - In find force in the contention of the appellants that interest was not quantified and no option was given to them for payment of reduced penalty - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding penalty to director - there is no dispute that the director has made a confession statement admitting the offence I find force in the contention of the department that penalty under Rule 25 is subject to the provisions of Section 11AC which is not the case with penalty under Rule 26 - Penalty is reducet to Rs. 1 Lakh

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of CEA 1944 and Rule 25 of CER, 2002. Challenge on penalty imposed on the company and its director. Whether the appellants are eligible for the option to pay reduced penalty and if penalty on the director is sustainable.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of CTD bars, filed an appeal against the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties. The case arose from the purchase of MS ingots without documents, leading to a show-cause notice against the appellants and others. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed a demand and imposed penalties under Section 11AC of CEA 1944 and Rule 25 of CER, 2002, on the appellants and their director. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appeal.

The appellants contested the penalty imposition on the company, not the demand confirmation. They argued that they were entitled to the option to pay 25% of the penalty amount under the first proviso to Section 11AC, which the authorities did not provide. They also challenged the penalty on the director, claiming it was excessive. The appellants cited various decisions to support their arguments.

The JDR contended that the appellants were not eligible for the reduced penalty option as they had not paid interest. Regarding the penalty on the director, it was argued that Rule 25 penalties are subject to Section 11AC and should stand, especially since the director had confessed to the offense. A Supreme Court decision was cited in support of this argument.

After reviewing the submissions and records, the judge found that the demand confirmation and penalty under Section 11AC were justified. However, the appellants were indeed entitled to the option of paying a reduced penalty of 25%, as consistent with previous court decisions. Thus, the appellants were given this option. As for the penalty on the director, despite the confession, the penalty was reduced to Rs.1 lakh considering the circumstances. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with modifications to the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.