2013 (12) TMI 803 - AT - Central Excise

Conclusion of proceedings u/s 11A(2) of Central Excise Act Held that - Duty along with interest and 25% of penalty has been paid within the stipulated period under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944 there was no merits in the contention of the Revenue that proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not concluded - the proceedings under Section 11A(2) are to be treated as closed. Entitlement for Cum-duty benefit Held that - Following C.C.E., Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2002 (2) TMI 101 - Supreme Court - Asssessee is entitled to cum-duty benefit Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals)
2. Completion of proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
3. Allegation of clandestine clearance and denial of cum-duty benefit

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals)
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where it was held that the respondent had paid the full duty demanded in the show cause notice along with interest and penalty within the stipulated period. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the proceedings contemplated in the show cause notice were concluded. The Revenue challenged this order on the grounds of incomplete proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the allegation of clandestine clearance.

Issue 2: Completion of proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The main contention of the Revenue was that the proceedings under Section 11A(2) were not concluded. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty had been paid within the stipulated period under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944. This finding was not challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case against another individual involved in the same show cause notice also supported the conclusion that the proceedings were to be treated as closed. Therefore, the argument of the Revenue regarding the non-conclusion of proceedings under Section 11A(2) was dismissed.

Issue 3: Allegation of clandestine clearance and denial of cum-duty benefit
The Revenue also challenged the impugned order on the grounds of alleged clandestine clearance and denial of cum-duty benefit to the respondents. However, it was found that duty had been confirmed against the respondent, entitling them to cum-duty benefit as established in a previous Supreme Court case. Consequently, the appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, finding that the duty, interest, and penalty had been paid within the required period, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 11A(2) were closed. Additionally, the respondents were entitled to cum-duty benefit as per legal precedent, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue.