2017 (11) TMI 1678 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - default in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was made good subsequently - Held that - The provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, has been the subject matter of litigation before various Higher Appellate Forum - no malafide can be attributed to the assessee, so as to invoke the penal provisions against them. Penalty not imposable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Interpretation of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The judgment primarily deals with the challenge to the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal noted that during the default period under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appellants had paid their duty liability from the Cenvat Credit Account. Subsequently, upon the Revenue's notification, the duty was paid in cash with interest, and the debit entry in the credit account was rectified. Therefore, the sole issue remaining for consideration was the penalty under Rule 25. The Tribunal referred to precedents establishing that in such circumstances, penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, with a maximum limit of ?5,000, was applicable.

2. Additionally, the Tribunal delved into the interpretation of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which had been a contentious issue in higher appellate forums. The Tribunal highlighted a decision by the Madras High Court in the case of Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, where the provision was declared void. However, this decision was stayed by the Supreme Court, indicating ongoing litigation on the matter. Considering the legal uncertainty surrounding Rule 8 (3A), the Tribunal concluded that no malafide intent could be attributed to the assessee in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to uphold the penalty and set it aside, allowing the appeal in that regard.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the specific issue of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the interpretation of the contentious Rule 8 (3A). By considering the legal precedents and the unsettled nature of Rule 8 (3A)'s validity, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed. This detailed analysis underscores the legal intricacies involved in the case and the Tribunal's meticulous examination of the relevant provisions and judicial decisions to arrive at a reasoned decision.