2015 (10) TMI 1176 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Shortage of raw materials - Penalty imposed on partner - Held that - no appeal was filed against the partner. Regarding the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine, I find that the goods were not available and the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set-aside, the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine. It is also noted that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in various decision held that assessee should be given option to pay the reduced penalty under the said provision if, the Adjudication Authority had not given such option. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty, interest, and penalties on the respondent and its partner.
2. Setting aside of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the partner.
3. Option to pay reduced penalty under Section 114 A of the Customs Act and Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Respondents were involved in the manufacturing of various products under Chapter 54 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Central Excise Officers found a shortage of raw materials during a visit to the factory in 2003, leading to the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties by the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and redemption fine, providing the option to pay a reduced penalty under specific provisions.

Issue 2:
The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue argued against setting aside the penalty on the partner of the respondent. However, it was noted that no appeal was filed against the partner, leading to the rejection of this argument. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the confiscation and redemption fine due to the unavailability of the goods. The decision was supported by previous judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, emphasizing the provision of an option for reduced penalty when not initially offered by the Adjudication Authority.

Issue 3:
After thorough consideration, the judge, Mr. P.K. Das, found no valid reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross objection was also disposed of. The judgment was pronounced in open court, affirming the decision made based on the presented arguments and legal precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, as delivered by Mr. P.K. Das.