2008 (9) TMI 681 - HC - Central Excise

Reduction of personal penalty clandestine removal of the goods Held that - Relevant portion of the judgment of the Tribunal reducing the personal penalty has been quoted in the preceding paragraph of this order. It does not indicate any reason much less valid reason. It is well settled that whenever a Court or Tribunal is given discretion, the discretion has to be exercised on sound principles, which must appear from the order itself - Tribunal erred in reducing the personal penalty without assigning any reason - matter remanded back to the Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
Alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty, imposition of personal penalty, reduction of personal penalty by the Tribunal without assigning valid reasons.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Asian Plywood Industries (Private) Limited, a manufacturer of wood products under Chapter 44 of the Central Excise Tariff. Upon inspection, discrepancies were found in the RG-I register and private records, indicating a shortfall in stock compared to recorded balances. A show cause notice was issued alleging clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. The Additional Commissioner confirmed duty demand, personal penalty, and interest. The manufacturer's appeal was unsuccessful, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal, which reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 1,63,556.54 to Rs. 75,000. The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged this reduction under Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act.

The High Court considered the matter and directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the reduction of personal penalty without valid reasons. The Court emphasized that any reduction in penalty must be supported by sound and valid reasons, which were lacking in the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty without providing any justification, thereby vitiating the order. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with the directive to provide proper reasoning when deciding on the penalty.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the substantial question of law in the negative, stating that the Tribunal's reduction of the personal penalty without assigning reasons was incorrect. The case was disposed of, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reevaluation in accordance with the Court's observations.