2012 (6) TMI 611 - AT - Central Excise

Delay in payment of duty,interest and penalty Revenue appeal that the Commissioner had no authority or power to accept the payment made beyond the period of one month from the date of communication of the order assessee contested that the bankers did not accept the payment because there was no registration number and there was delay in giving temporary registration number by the Assistant commissioner - Held that - As there is no provision in the law u/s 11AC to condone the delay in payment of duty, interest and penalty for whatever reason by any authority, therefore Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly travelled beyond his powers vested in him under the law as the OIO clearly mentions the assessee s registration number, his written submission have not explained what happened to the registration number they already had and on what date they approached the Assistant Commissioner and what date temporary registration number was given to them as there is one year of delay in payment of duty, no question of condoning the delay arise in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand with interest and penalty against the appellant company.
- Reduction of penalty by the impugned order.
- Appeal filed by the Revenue against the reduction of penalty.

Analysis:

1. Duty Demand with Interest and Penalty:
The appellant company, engaged in the manufacture of Man Made Fabrics, was found to have cleared 53241.37 L.Mts of Processed MMF illicitly without issuing Central Excise Invoices or duty paying documents, and without payment of Central Excise. This led to a duty demand with interest and penalty against the company. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand with interest and a penalty equal to the duty.

2. Reduction of Penalty:
The appeal filed by the appellants resulted in the impugned order, which considered the amount of duty with interest paid by the appellants and 25% of the duty towards penalty as fulfilling the legal requirements. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to 25% of the duty and deemed as paid in the impugned order. However, the Revenue filed an appeal against this decision, arguing that the Commissioner had no authority to accept the payment made beyond the specified period as per the order-in-original.

3. Appeal by the Revenue:
The Revenue contended that the delay in payment by the appellant was unjustified, as the appellant claimed the delay was due to the bankers not accepting the payment without a registration number. The Revenue argued that the appellant already had a central excise registration number, and the delay was not justified. The Revenue further emphasized that there was no provision in the law to condone the delay in payment of duty, interest, and penalty for any reason. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for accepting the appellant's submissions without proper verification. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, stating that the law did not empower any authority to condone such payment delays.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the duty demand, penalty reduction, and the appeal by the Revenue regarding the condonation of payment delay. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the lack of legal provision to condone delays in payment of duty, interest, and penalty, ultimately setting aside the impugned order.