2018 (7) TMI 1922 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - shortage of finished goods - ex-parte order - Demand of Interest - HELD THAT - The provisions of interest were introduced in the statute only with effect from 26.05.1995. Hence, for the demand relating to the period prior to this, there is no question of demanding interest - since the matter being very old and the matter having been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration there is no question of any penalty being imposed against the appellant. The demand of ₹ 1,81,321/- is upheld and order for payment of the same - demand of interest is set aside as the provisions relating to interest were not applicable during the relevant period - penalty imposed against the appellant is set aside - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty on shortages of finished goods, applicability of interest provisions, imposition of penalty.

Demand of Duty on Shortages of Finished Goods:
The case involved a demand of ?1,81,321 along with interest and penalty against the Appellant due to shortages of finished goods observed during a visit by Central Excise Officers on 06.02.1992. The Ld. Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority after a long delay of 15 years, leading to the Appellant conceding to the duty demand. The Counsel for the Appellant argued that no interest should be payable as the provisions were introduced only from 26.05.1995, and the demand pertained to a period before this date. The Tribunal accepted the concession made by the Appellant regarding the duty demand and ruled in favor of upholding the demand amount.

Applicability of Interest Provisions:
The Appellant contended that no interest should be payable on the duty demand since the provisions relating to interest were not applicable during the period in question, i.e., before 26.05.1995. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and set aside the demand for interest, citing the absence of relevant provisions during the relevant period. This decision was based on a thorough consideration of the documents on record and the relevant legal provisions.

Imposition of Penalty:
Given the old nature of the case and the remand for fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal concluded that no penalty should be imposed on the Appellant. The Tribunal held that due to the age of the matter and the lack of available documents to prove the case, it was not appropriate to penalize the Appellant. Consequently, the penalty imposed against the Appellant was set aside, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal filed by the Appellant.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLATA ruled in favor of the Appellant on the issue of interest and penalty, setting aside the demand for interest and the penalty imposed, while upholding the demand of ?1,81,321 related to shortages of finished goods. The decision was based on the absence of interest provisions applicable during the relevant period and the considerations of the case's age and lack of available evidence.