2016 (12) TMI 1117 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - clandestine removal - M.S. Ingots - it is the contention of ld. Counsel that they are not pressing for their appeal in respect of ₹ 6,96,832/-. So, the issue now left for decision is confirmed demand of ₹ 52,955/-, 62,481/- & ₹ 64,187/-. The ld. Counsel has argued that ₹ 64,187/- is on account of shortage found which is already covered in the accepted liability which has not been passed. He has further contended that the confirmed demands of ₹ 52,955/- & 62,481/- are also repetitive demands which are already covered in ₹ 6,96,832/- which is not pressed. He has further argued that it is an admitted fact that ₹ 11 lakhs were paid before issue of Show Cause Notice. Therefore, as provided under Sub-section 2A of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 during the relevant time proceedings get concluded on payment of liability before issue of Show Cause Notice. Therefore, penalty imposed on appellant manufacture and director may be set aside. Held that - I find force in the arguments put forth by the counsel for the appellant. Therefore, I set aside the confirmed demand of ₹ 52,955/-, ₹ 62,481 & ₹ 64,187 and set aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 25 on the appellant manufacture and personal penalty imposed on Shri Babu Lal Jain and modify the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 22-04-2009 to above extent. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of appeals under litigation policy without delving into merits
- Appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 86-90-CE/LKO/2009
- Confirmation of demand and penalties by Original Authority
- Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent modifications
- Arguments regarding confirmed demands and penalties
- Consideration of arguments by the Tribunal and final decision

Dismissal under Litigation Policy:
The appeals regarding disputed amounts covered by the CBEC's litigation policy were dismissed without a detailed examination of the case's merits.

Appeals Against Order-in-Appeal:
Two appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 86-90-CE/LKO/2009 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Lucknow.

Confirmation of Demand and Penalties:
The Original Authority confirmed a demand of certain amounts as Central Excise duty and imposed penalties on the manufacturer and the director. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the demand and penalties in the subsequent Order-in-Appeal.

Appeal and Modifications:
Both appellants approached the Tribunal challenging the Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal considered the arguments and modified the decision regarding confirmed demands and penalties.

Arguments and Decision:
The appellant's counsel argued that certain demands were repetitive and already covered in a payment not pressed during the appeal. It was contended that the penalty should be set aside based on the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments, setting aside the confirmed demands and penalties imposed on the manufacturer and director.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeals by setting aside the confirmed demands and penalties, modifying the Order-in-Appeal accordingly.