2017 (7) TMI 1133 - AT - Central Excise

Invocation of section 11AC without demand of duty - failure to pay duty of Excise - availment of privilege of monthly payment of duties despite the legal restrictions - Penalty u/r 25 of CER read with section 11AC of CEA - Confiscation, whether pre-requisite for invoking section 11AC or rule 25 or not? - Held that - The appellant, having cleared the goods without payment of duty in the manner specified and by concealing the facts from Central Excise authorities, had rendered the goods liable to confiscation and themselves liable to be penalised under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that ingredients of section 11AC, having thus been reasonably invoked, cannot be faulted. The plea that confiscation is a necessary pre-requisite is not backed by the provisions of either section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 or rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002. - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal revolves around the imposition of a penalty on Neolex Cables for failing to pay excise duties on goods cleared during specific periods. The appellant was found to have contravened rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by clearing goods without paying duty on each consignment as required. Despite being deprived of the privilege of consolidated monthly payment under the rule, the appellant continued to use this privilege, leading to a penalty imposition of Rs.37,61,824. The first appellate authority confirmed this penalty, prompting the appeal.

The primary contention raised in the appeal was that the invocation of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without a demand for duty was legally flawed. The appellant argued that duty liability payment and monthly returns filing were not in dispute, and the elements of section 11AC did not apply to them. Additionally, it was claimed that the failure to confiscate the goods under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 should have precluded the imposition of subsequent penalties.

Despite the appellant acknowledging the contravention of rule 8 by clearing goods without paying duty on each consignment, they relied on legal precedents to argue against the penalty imposition. The appellant cited decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court to support their case, emphasizing the principles governing penalty imposition under section 11AC. However, the Tribunal noted that by clearing goods without paying duty as required and concealing facts from authorities, the appellant had rendered the goods liable for confiscation and themselves subject to penalties under rule 25. The Tribunal found the invocation of section 11AC to be reasonable and dismissed the appeal, stating that the grounds presented lacked merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition on Neolex Cables for contravening rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and clearing goods without paying duty, rejecting the appellant's arguments against the penalty under section 11AC.