2013 (7) TMI 465 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - Zinc dross and ash - Excisability / Marketability appellant is not disputing the legal issue and as such is not challenging the confirmation of demand along with interest. - However, he submits that inasmuch as they were reflecting all the clearances of zinc dross and ash in their returns filed with the revenue, there was no suppression on their part and as such penalty should not have been imposed. - Held that - As per the decision in case of KEC International Ltd 2012 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Uphold the dutiability of the zinc dross and ash has set aside the penalty on the ground that such clearances were effected with the knowledge of the Revenue - Set aside the penalty - Confirm the duty and interest.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of duty on zinc dross and ash, imposition of penalty, suppression of facts, applicability of penalty in case of clearances reflecting in returns.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, pertains to the confirmation of duty on zinc dross and ash for the period between 1.7.2010 and 31.12.2010. The lower authorities found the goods in question to be marketable post an amendment to the provisions of section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, thereby holding the appellant responsible for their manufacture.

The legal issue at hand was not disputed by the advocate representing the appellant. The advocate did not challenge the demand confirmation with interest but argued against the imposition of penalty. It was contended that since all clearances of zinc dross and ash were duly reflected in the returns filed with the revenue, there was no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant warranting the imposition of a penalty.

In a significant reference to the case of KEC International Ltd., where the Tribunal upheld the dutiability of zinc dross and ash but set aside the penalty due to clearances being made with the knowledge of the Revenue, the Tribunal in this case followed a similar line of reasoning. Relying on the precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the penalty while confirming the duty and interest on the appellant.

Ultimately, the judgment concluded by disposing of the stay petition and the appeal in the terms outlined, providing relief to the appellant by setting aside the penalty while upholding the duty and interest liabilities. The decision showcases the importance of transparency in reporting clearances to the Revenue authorities to avoid penalties even in cases of confirmed duty liabilities.