2015 (10) TMI 1656 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of the goods - redemption fine and penalties - Held that - Appellant has no case and the appellant has admitted duty liability and the same has been paid alongwith interest and also paid 25% duty as penalty by the main appellant within 30 days of issue of show cause notice. In such situation, the proceedings against the main appellant and co-appellant come to an end. - Reliance placed by the learned AR on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur vs. Anand Agarwal (2013 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) is not helpful to him as the decision in Anand Agarwal is per incuriam as the decision in the case of Vikas Garg- 2011 (1) TMI 129 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has not been considered by this Tribunal. Further in the case of Jay Prakash Agarwal (2013 (7) TMI 827 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) a similar issue came up before this Tribunal after considering the decision in the case of Anand Agarwal have arrived at the decision that if duty, interest and 25% duty as penalty have been deposited by the manufacturer within the stipulated time as prescribed under section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the show cause notice also stands concluded. - impugned order was not required to be passed and in this case the proceedings against the appellants would be concluded - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confiscation of goods, redemption of fine, and penalties imposed on main appellant and co-appellant.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the impugned order that confiscated goods, imposed redemption fine, and penalties on them. An investigation revealed shortages and excess goods in the main appellant's factory. The main appellant admitted duty liability, paid the duty, interest, and 25% penalty within 30 days of the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority dropped proceedings against the main appellant but the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, confiscating excess stock and imposing penalties. The appellants contended that proceedings against the main appellant should have concluded earlier as per section 11A (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They argued that after the adjudication order, the goods were sold, making redemption fine inapplicable. They cited relevant tribunal and high court decisions in support.

The Revenue argued for the imposition of penalties based on a different tribunal decision. However, the tribunal found that the main appellant had fulfilled their obligations within the stipulated time, concluding the proceedings. The tribunal noted that the decision cited by the Revenue was not applicable as it did not consider a relevant prior decision. Referring to a similar case, the tribunal emphasized that if duty, interest, and penalty were paid within the specified time, the show cause notice would be concluded. Consequently, the tribunal held that the impugned order was unnecessary, and the proceedings against the appellants should be concluded. Relying on the precedent set by a specific tribunal case, the tribunal determined that confiscation of goods and the imposition of redemption fines and penalties were unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.