2012 (11) TMI 76 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturing of Goods at Unregistered places - confiscation - imposition of redemption fine - Held that - Sheds were not registered under Central Excise nor the appellant informed about the existence to the Department - appellant contravened the provision of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and are therefore liable to penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, penalty is reduced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on the appellants barring that entire order of the ld. Commissioner is set aside - Appeal is allowed to that extent.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of manufacturing goods at unregistered premises
- Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty
- Dispute regarding duty payment and benefit of Notification 32/99-CE
- Contravention of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Allegation of manufacturing goods at unregistered premises:
The case involved allegations against the appellants for manufacturing goods at unregistered premises, Shed No. C-1 (C & D) and C-2 (C & D), despite being registered at Shed No. B-5 (A & B) & B-6 (A & B). The Department seized goods from these unregistered premises and issued a show-cause notice. The appellants contended that they paid duty on goods from both registered and unregistered premises, which was recorded in the show-cause notice and later endorsed by Central Excise Authorities. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not dispute the duty payment but were penalized for contravening Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by not registering the unlisted premises.

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty:
The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, confiscated goods from unregistered premises, and imposed penalties under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants appealed against this decision. The Tribunal observed that while the penalty was reduced to Rs.10,000 considering the circumstances, the Department failed to prove any undue benefit taken by the appellants under Notification No. 32/99-CE. The duty payment was acknowledged, and the issue mainly revolved around the registration status of the manufacturing premises.

Dispute regarding duty payment and benefit of Notification 32/99-CE:
The Department alleged that the appellants were benefiting from Notification No. 32/99-CE without providing substantial evidence. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of illegal duty payment or misuse of the notification. The duty payment on the goods was not in question, and the Department could not establish any wrongdoing in this regard. The focus shifted to the registration status of the manufacturing sheds and the subsequent penalty under Rule 25.

Contravention of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants breached Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by operating unregistered manufacturing premises. Despite the later endorsement by Central Excise Authorities, the initial lack of registration led to the penalty imposition under Rule 25. The Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced it significantly based on the overall circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in part, with the penalty reduced to Rs.10,000 and the Commissioner's order set aside.