2016 (8) TMI 1018 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - trading of goods on commission basis - goods cleared without payment of duty - Held that - it is found that the role of the appellant against the total quantity of 567.600 MT goods cleared clandestinely, is limited to 316.85 MT and the commission received by them as trader is around ₹ 3.16 lacs @ ₹ 1/- per kg. as claimed. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the penalty on the Appellant from 25 lacs to ₹ 10.00 lacs. - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of duty demand and penalty amount against the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad III. The appellant, a proprietorship concern engaged in trading goods on a commission basis, contested the penalty imposed on them. The Tribunal had previously decided similar appeals involving M/s Sampat Aluminium Pvt Ltd, reducing duty demand and penalty amounts. The appellant's role in the evasion of duty was limited to a specific quantity of goods, for which they received a commission. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the appellant was involved in the clearance of goods without payment of duty, based on admissions made by the authorized signatory of another company. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and evidence on record, reduced the penalty on the appellant from the initial amount to a lesser sum of &8377; 10.00 lacs, taking into account the circumstances and the quantity of goods involved. The appeal was partly allowed, resulting in a reduction of the penalty amount imposed on the appellant.

This judgment highlights the Tribunal's role in reviewing duty demands and penalties imposed on appellants involved in the evasion of duty. The decision was based on previous rulings and the specific circumstances of the case, considering the quantity of goods cleared clandestinely and the commission received by the appellant. The reduction in the penalty amount signifies a balanced approach by the Tribunal, taking into consideration the appellant's limited role in the evasion scheme. The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence and facts in determining the appropriate penalty amount, ensuring a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty on the appellant showcases a nuanced understanding of the case, balancing the enforcement of duty payment requirements with a proportional penalty amount. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases involving duty evasion, providing clarity on the factors considered in determining penalty amounts and emphasizing the significance of evidence and submissions in such proceedings.