2016 (6) TMI 157 - HC - Central Excise

Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalties - possession of excess stock of copper rods and copper ingots - not accounted for in statutory records - Held that - when this Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Full Bench of the CESTAT in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ganpati Rolling Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (6) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI as withdrawn, there was obviously no occasion to consider any of the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and in the case of Prince Multiplast Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 (5) TMI 474 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , which in the considered view of the Court merit acceptance. Therefore, the court is unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order of the CESTAT. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding penalties and confiscation of goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order passed by CESTAT setting aside penalties and redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the Respondents for possessing excess stock of copper rods and ingots. The CESTAT found that there was no contravention of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Rules as the Appellants had not taken Cenvat Credit. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, which allows for confiscation and penalties in certain contraventions. The CESTAT held that since there were no findings regarding violation of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, Rule 25 could not have been invoked.

The Appellant argued that the CESTAT erred in interpreting Rule 25 and that the requirement of "with intent to evade payment of duty" should not be read into the rule. They contended that satisfaction of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not necessary for confiscation and penalty under Rule 25. On the other hand, the Respondents relied on previous judgments to support the CESTAT's interpretation of Rule 25.

The High Court analyzed the language of Rule 25 and noted that it explicitly begins with "Subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the CE Act," indicating a condition for exercising power under the rule. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that the ingredients of Section 11AC must be considered before levying penalties under Rule 25. Since the show cause notice made no reference to Section 11AC, the Court found no basis for adjudicating penalties under that section.

The Court highlighted that the Full Bench of CESTAT did not consider relevant judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court in their decision. As a result, the Court found no error in the CESTAT's order and concluded that no substantial question of law arose for determination. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.