2013 (10) TMI 347 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Penalty under Rule 25 of CE Rules 2002 Default in Payment of duty as per Rule 8(3A) of the CE Rules Held that - Following CCE & Cus. vs. Saurashtra Cement Limited 2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - There was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade any payment of duty - It is only because of stringent financial condition, that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid along with interest - the appellant has prima facie made out a case for complete waiver of the amount of penalty - there shall be stay on recovery of penalty till the disposal of appeal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for defaulting in payment of Central Excise duty as per Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules
The case involved the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules for defaulting in payment of Central Excise duty as per Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued, citing a judgment of the Gujarat High Court, that delay in payment of duty and interest should not be considered as fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement to evade duty, especially when Section 11AC is not attracted. The appellant contended that based on the Gujarat High Court judgment, penalty under Rule 25 could not be imposed, and thus, requested a stay on the penalty.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules
The respondent, however, argued that as per Rule 8(3A), in cases of default in payment of Central Excise duty, the goods cleared without payment of duty should attract penalties as provided in the Central Excise Rules. Both sides presented their arguments, and the case records were examined.

Judgment and Decision
After considering the arguments and the legal position, the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which highlighted that in cases where there was no intention to evade duty but a delay in payment due to financial constraints, penalties under Rule 25 could not be imposed. The High Court affirmed that penalties were restricted to a nominal amount of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 27 in such situations. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no substantial question of law arose from the orders passed. Following the precedent set by the High Court, the Tribunal granted a stay on the recovery of the penalty until the appeal was disposed of, acknowledging the appellant's prima facie case for a complete waiver of the penalty amount.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning, interpretations of relevant rules, and the application of precedents in deciding the issue of penalty imposition in the context of Central Excise Rules.