2008 (4) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Whether Rs.5000/- is a minimum penalty that is required to be imposed in terms of Rule 25 of CER held that amount mentioned in Rule 173Q(1) (of CER, 1944) or Rule 25(1) (of CER 2002) is the maximum, and not the minimum - amount shall not exceed the duty determined - while exercising discretion in fixing the amount, the authorities are supposed to give due regard to the relevant factors(nature and gravity of the offence, defence of the person and the extent of evasion)

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding the minimum penalty of Rs.5000.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether Rs.5000 is the minimum penalty required to be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rule provides for an alternate penalty of Rs.10,000, which was later substituted with Rs.2000 through an amendment. The conflicting decisions of different Tribunals were discussed, where one held that there is no minimum penalty prescribed, while the other stated that Rs.5000 is the minimum penalty. The judgment emphasized that a decision can only be a precedent on the points raised and decided. The court analyzed the provisions of Rule 25 in conjunction with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, highlighting that the penalty cannot exceed the duty amount determined. The judgment clarified that the amount mentioned in the rule is the maximum, not the minimum, and authorities have discretion to impose a lesser penalty based on circumstances.

The court referred to previous cases to support its conclusion that even with a prescribed minimum penalty, the authority can impose a lesser amount based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The judgment underscored that penalty imposition is a penal action requiring a case-by-case assessment. It was concluded that the amount specified in the rule is the maximum penalty that can be imposed, not the minimum. The court highlighted the importance of considering relevant factors while exercising discretion in determining the penalty amount. The judgment answered the reference question by affirming that the amount mentioned in Rule 25 is the maximum penalty that should not exceed the duty determined, with due consideration to relevant factors.

The judgment acknowledged the assistance of the amicus curiae in the case, and the decision was pronounced in an open court on a specific date.