2013 (12) TMI 1027 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of 100% Penalty Assessee amortized the entire cost of moulds in the cost of parts manufactured - Held that - The Revenue s contention that said raising of cost of the moulds would be applicable retrospectively and it would be the higher cost of moulds which have to be amortized in the value of the parts does not stand disputed by the assessee and they have discharged their duty liability, on being pointed out by the Revenue Thus, imposition of penalty upon the appellant is not called for as there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee to amortize the lower cost of the moulds in the value of the vehicle parts - confirmation of demand of duty has not been disputed by the appellants, it was upheld and penalties imposed upon both the appellants set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues:
1. Duty liability on amortization of imported moulds
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 11 AC

Issue 1: Duty liability on amortization of imported moulds

The case involved two appellants who were job workers of a company and manufactured parts of motor vehicles for that company using moulds imported under the EPCG scheme at nil duty rate. The imported moulds were supplied to the appellants by the company, and the cost of the moulds was amortized and included in the value of the parts manufactured by the appellants. Subsequently, due to the company's failure to fulfill export obligations, they paid the basic customs duty on the moulds along with interest. The Revenue contended that the duty and interest paid by the company should also be included in the value of the parts cleared by the appellants in the past on an amortization basis. The appellants paid the duty as directed by the Revenue, leading to the imposition of penalties up to 100%.

The advocate for the appellants argued that if the Revenue's contention was accepted, the amortization should have been done from the beginning in 1994 when the moulds were first supplied, making the claim time-barred. However, as the duty paid by the appellants was available as credit to the company, the situation was revenue-neutral. The advocate requested the penalties to be set aside. The Revenue, represented by the DR, supported the imposition of penalties under Section 11 AC.

The Tribunal acknowledged the peculiar nature of the case where the cost of the moulds was not initially included in the duties and interest. It was only after the company paid the duty and interest that the value of the moulds increased. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had no malicious intent in amortizing the lower cost of the moulds in the value of the parts. As the confirmation of the duty demand was undisputed, the Tribunal upheld the demand but set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalties under Section 11 AC

The Revenue sought to impose penalties on the appellants under Section 11 AC despite the appellants having paid the duty as directed. The Revenue argued that the penalties were appropriate given the circumstances. However, the appellants contended that the penalties were unwarranted as the duty paid was available as credit to the company, resulting in a revenue-neutral situation. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that since there was no malicious intent on the part of the appellants and the duty demand was confirmed, the imposition of penalties was deemed unnecessary. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on both appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.

← Previous Next →