2015 (10) TMI 1244 - AT - Central Excise

Undervaluation of goods - Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - After the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Ravi Kiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (2) TMI 211 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), where the appellant was party, the penalty imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained. However, the Tribunal remanded the appeal of the manufacturer against the impugned order to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merit, so, it is appropriate, the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide alongwith the appeal of the manufacturer. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Applicability of Tribunal's decision in a similar case. Remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision.

Analysis:
1. The applicants filed appeals against the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal had previously set aside a penalty in a similar case involving the manufacturer M/s Ravi Kiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.

2. The Tribunal found that various manufacturers, including M/s Ravi Kiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd., were involved in manufacturing Plastic Moulded Articles and Air Coolers of the 'Symphony' brand. The appellants were engaged in marketing and selling 'Symphony' brand Air Coolers. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty demand, interest, and imposed penalties on both the manufacturer and the appellants under Rule 26. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellants.

3. The Learned Advocate informed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal of the manufacturer for non-compliance of a stay order. The Tribunal had set aside the order against the manufacturer and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue was covered by a previous Tribunal decision in favor of the assessee, where the present appellant was a party.

4. The Tribunal considered the earlier decision involving M/s Ravi Kiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant could not be sustained. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide along with the appeal of the manufacturer. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter within three months from the date of receiving the order, ensuring proper opportunity for hearing.

5. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal of the appellants alongside the manufacturer's appeal within a specified time frame. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to provide a proper opportunity for hearing. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, and the applications for early hearing were dismissed as infructuous.