2016 (4) TMI 1350 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of Interest and penalty - delay in discharging of duty - Held that - There is delay in payment of duty by the respondent - Since, interest liability is compensatory in character, levy of the same is automatic, wherever there is delay in payment of duty - the interest demand dropped in the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favor of Revenue. Imposition of penalty - Held that - There was no intention on the part of the respondent in defrauding the Government Revenue inasmuch as the respondent has sufficient balance in its Cenvat account for discharging the duty liability. Further, non-payment of duty on the waste product is attributable to the interpretation of the provisions of law and also supported by the decisions of the judicial forums - penalty rightly set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order setting aside interest and penalty confirmed in the adjudication order.
2. Delay in payment of duty by the respondent.
3. Interpretation of provisions of law regarding duty liability on waste product.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs and Central Excise, Indore, where interest and penalty confirmed in the adjudication order were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal noted that the Central Excise duty attributable to waste and scrap of CR Coil/'Reversible Mill Ends' was not discharged by the respondent during a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the interest and penalty, stating that the respondent had sufficient balance in its Cenvat account, resulting in no loss to the Government exchequer. However, the Tribunal held that interest liability is compensatory in nature and is automatically levied in case of delayed duty payment. Therefore, the interest demand dropped in the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue on this ground.

2. Regarding the delay in payment of duty by the respondent, the Tribunal emphasized that interest on delayed payment of duty is mandatory. The Tribunal found that there was indeed a delay in the payment of duty by the respondent, and as interest liability is compensatory, it must be levied automatically in such cases. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the Revenue on this issue.

3. The issue of interpretation of provisions of law regarding duty liability on the waste product was also discussed. The Tribunal noted that the non-payment of duty on the waste product was due to an interpretation of the law and was supported by decisions of judicial forums. The Tribunal found no intention on the part of the respondent to defraud the Government revenue, as there was a sufficient balance in the Cenvat account for discharging the duty liability. Given this, the Tribunal did not find any fault in the impugned order for setting aside the penalty amount. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue failed on this ground, and the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal in favor of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the automatic levy of interest on delayed duty payment, set aside the interest demand dropped in the impugned order, and partially allowed the appeal in favor of the Revenue based on the issues of delay in payment of duty and the interpretation of provisions of law regarding duty liability on waste products.