2012 (5) TMI 356 - AT - Central Excise

Personal penalty on Director - held that - Admittedly the manufacturer having paid the entire duty, interest along with 25% of penalty within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of show cause notice, the proceedings are required to be held as conclusive in respect of the manufacturer as also in respect of the co-noticees. As such, separate imposition of penalty on the Director is not called for. - The Revenue s appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the Director of a company for clandestine removal of final products.
2. Interpretation of provisions of sub section 1A of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Application of Circular No. 831/08/2006 CX dated 26.7.06 in the case.

Imposition of Penalty on Director:
The case involved a Director of a company engaged in the manufacture of MS channels and beams who accepted charges of clandestine removal of final products and paid the duty along with interest and penalty within 30 days of the issuance of a Show cause notice. The original adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty on the Director considering the timely payment. However, the Revenue challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), seeking imposition of a penalty on the Director.

Interpretation of Legal Provisions:
The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to sub section 1A of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the first proviso to section 11A(2), which state that if duty is paid in full along with interest and 25% penalty within 30 days of the notice, the proceedings are deemed conclusive. The Commissioner concluded that proceedings should be concluded for all concerned persons, including co-noticees, based on the provisions and a circular (Circular No. 831/08/2006 CX dated 26.7.06) supporting this interpretation.

Application of Circular:
The appellate tribunal, after reviewing the grounds of appeal and hearing arguments, upheld the Commissioner's decision. It found no issue with the Commissioner's interpretation and application of the legal provisions and the circular. As the manufacturer had paid the duty, interest, and penalty within the stipulated time, the proceedings were deemed conclusive for both the manufacturer and co-noticees. Therefore, the separate imposition of a penalty on the Director was deemed unnecessary, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the imposition of penalties in cases of clandestine removal of goods and emphasizes the importance of timely payment of duties and penalties as per the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision underscores the need for a comprehensive and conclusive resolution of proceedings for all concerned parties based on the timely fulfillment of payment obligations.