2012 (4) TMI 518 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - Held that - opted for special procedure as provided under Rule 15 of Central Excise Rules 2002 but have belatedly filed the declarations as required under Notification No. 17/2005. It is undisputed that appellant has cleared the final products on discharge of duty liability according to the calculations under the notification. The penalty is imposed on the ground that appellant has not filed declarations in time and hence violation of the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. In my considered view the appellant having cleared their excisable products on payment of duty has followed the provisions of notification despite filing the declarations belatedly. This being the case in my view the appellant being visited with the penalty seems to be unwarranted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of a penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority. Despite no appearance on behalf of the appellant, a written submission was filed, citing a similar case. The Tribunal found the issue to be straightforward and decided to dispose of the appeal at that moment. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was granted, and the appeal was taken up for disposal.

The main argument presented by the appellant was that they had followed the special procedure under Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 but had filed the required declarations belatedly as per Notification No. 17/2005. It was acknowledged that the appellant had cleared the final products upon discharging the duty liability based on the notification calculations. The penalty was imposed due to the delayed filing of declarations, a violation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, concluded that since the appellant had cleared the excisable products by paying duty per the notification, despite the delayed declarations, penalizing them seemed unjustified. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Shri M.V. Ravindran, J.