2008 (9) TMI 146 - HC - Central Excise

Revenue levied composite penalty u/s 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 as well as u/r 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 authorities are not clear as to whether the penalty is to be levied for violation of which provision action of revenue of levying consolidated/composite penalty is not justified - penalty imposed was unreasonable

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in waiving the penalty on the Director?
2. Whether the penalty imposed was legally permissible under the Customs Act and Central Excise Rules?
3. Whether the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty was valid?

Analysis:

Issue 1: The Hon'ble CESTAT's decision to waive the penalty on the Director was challenged. The Tribunal observed that the penalty imposed was unsustainable as it was considered a consolidated/composite penalty, which was deemed legally impermissible. The Department contended that the penalty should not have been set aside, especially since confiscation and duty demand were upheld. The Tribunal's decision was based on the argument that the penalty was imposed under Sec.112(b) of the Customs Act and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, which was deemed legally impermissible.

Issue 2: The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the penalty imposed on the respondent was legally permissible. The Department argued that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty, as there was no prohibition under the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act against levying a consolidated/composite penalty. However, the respondent contended that there was no provision under the Acts or Rules to levy a composite penalty. The High Court, after examining the authorities below, agreed with the Tribunal's view that a composite/consolidated penalty was not leviable under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.

Issue 3: The Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty was further analyzed in light of legal precedents. The High Court referenced a case where the imposition of a composite penalty was deemed impermissible. Additionally, a Supreme Court case highlighted the difficulty in apportioning penalties between different contraventions. In the present case, the authorities were unclear on the specific violation for which the penalty was to be levied, and the issue of apportionment did not arise. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the order, and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty, emphasizing the legal impermissibility of a consolidated/composite penalty under the relevant provisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of clarity in penalty imposition and the necessity of adherence to legal provisions in such matters.