2014 (7) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Mandatory penalty - benefit of SSI exemption - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - there is a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakhapatnam-I Vs M/s. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Gases Ltd. reported in 2006 (11) TMI 618 - CESTAT BANGALORE , held in favour of the assessee as contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. In my considered view, the matter is required to be examined by Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of the decision of the Tribunal and the Board s Circular. Hence, I set aside both the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and the matters are remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after considering the case laws, Board s Circular and any other submissions - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Imposition of mandatory penalty in relation to the denial of SSI exemption for using a brand name of another person in the manufacture of Compressed Industrial Oxygen under Heading 2804.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of Mandatory Penalty: The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of a mandatory penalty under Section 11AC due to the denial of SSI exemption for using the brand name "INOX" of another person in the manufacture of Compressed Industrial Oxygen. The Adjudicating authority had modified the duty demand, confirmed a portion of duty as proposed in the show-cause notice, and imposed a penalty of equal amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently reduced the penalty amount for the respondent but dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted a decision in a similar case favoring the assessee and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the case in light of the Tribunal's decision and the relevant Board's Circular. The Tribunal clarified that its order was made without expressing any view on the merits of the case, and both appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for remand.

2. Remand and Reconsideration: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, found it necessary to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. This remand was based on the Tribunal's decision in a similar case and the requirement to consider relevant case laws and circulars. The Tribunal's order to remand the case indicated a procedural step to ensure a thorough reconsideration of the matter by the Commissioner (Appeals) without expressing any opinion on the substantive merits of the case. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of a comprehensive review by the Commissioner (Appeals) in light of the legal precedents and guidelines available.

3. Legal Precedents and Board's Circular: The Tribunal's decision to remand the case underscored the significance of considering legal precedents, such as the Tribunal's earlier decision and the relevant Board's Circular, in determining the outcome of the appeal. By setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanding the matters for fresh consideration, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the case in light of established legal principles and official guidelines. The Tribunal's approach indicated a commitment to ensuring that the case was adjudicated in accordance with the applicable laws and precedents, highlighting the importance of legal clarity and consistency in decision-making processes within the realm of excise law.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI addressed the issue of imposing a mandatory penalty in a case involving the denial of SSI exemption for using a brand name in the manufacture of Compressed Industrial Oxygen. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider legal precedents and the Board's Circular in reaching a conclusion. The decision highlighted the procedural aspect of ensuring a comprehensive review while refraining from expressing any view on the merits of the case.