2017 (11) TMI 1970 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of Interest - duty paid against shortage of goods noticed on the same day of the visit of the officers - levy of personal penalty on the Director and the employee - HELD THAT - The appellant had immediately paid the entire duty on the shortage of the goods noticed, hence interest is not attracted. Further, the Director in his statement accepted that the goods have been removed without payment of duty, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly confirmed the penalty on the Director and the employee. However, considering the overall circumstances of the case, and considering that the appellant company has paid 25% of the penalty imposed, in the interest of justice, the penalty on Director is reduced to ₹ 50,000/- and employee is reduced to ₹ 5,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Leviability of interest on duty paid against shortage of goods noticed on the same day of the visit of officers.
2. Imposition of personal penalty on the Director and the employee.

Analysis:
1. The main issues in the present appeals revolve around the liability of interest on duty paid for shortage of goods identified during a visit and the imposition of penalties on the Director and employee. The appellant's argument was that the duty was promptly paid upon discovery of the shortage, thus negating the applicability of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, the appellant contended that the penalties imposed were excessive, with the Director accepting the removal of goods without duty payment. The appellant's representative argued that the employee should not be penalized as he did not benefit from the non-payment of duty by the company.

2. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed immediately settled the duty amount upon detection of the goods shortage during the officers' visit, leading to the conclusion that interest was not warranted. Furthermore, the Director's admission of goods removal without duty payment supported the imposition of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, considering the overall circumstances and the appellant's partial payment of the penalties, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the Director and employee. The Director's penalty was reduced to ?50,000, and the employee's penalty was reduced to ?5,000. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the appeal against the interest levy and partially allowing the appeals of the Director and employee. The decision aimed to uphold justice while addressing the specific circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues addressed and the Tribunal's decision regarding the leviability of interest and imposition of penalties in the case.