2016 (12) TMI 1230 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of penalty - sought relief on the ground that once the proceedings are concluded against main noticee, the proceedings against the second noticee should also be deemed to be concluded - Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - section 11A(2) says that if the person on whom notice was served, has paid the duty in full together with, interest and penalty under sub-section (1A), the proceedings in respect of such person and other persons to whom notice are served under sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to the provisions of section 9, 9A and 9AA, be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein - the penalty imposed on the second appellant is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order confirming demand, interest, and penalty.
2. Reduction of penalty for one appellant.
3. Interpretation of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Applicability of a previous Tribunal decision.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, M/s Pantaloon Retail (I) Ltd. and Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order confirming a demand of &8377; 2,02,487/- with interest and penalty against M/s Pantaloon Retail. The penalty for Shri Dinesh Maheshwari was reduced from &8377; 50,000/- to &8377; 12,500 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The first appellant paid the entire duty demand, interest, and 25% penalty and sought closure under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The second appellant sought waiver of penalty, arguing that once proceedings against the main noticee are concluded, proceedings against the second noticee should also be deemed concluded.

2. The appellants relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Service Care Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, to support their argument. The decision provided an interpretation of a similar provision under the Service Tax Law.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states that if the duty, interest, and penalty are paid in full by the person served notice under sub-section (1), the proceedings shall be deemed conclusive. The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not address this provision adequately. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the second appellant was set aside, and the appeals were allowed to that extent.

4. The Tribunal's decision clarified the applicability of Section 11A(2) and emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By setting aside the penalty on the second appellant, the Tribunal ensured that the proceedings were in line with the statutory requirements. The judgment highlighted the need for a thorough consideration of legal provisions and adherence to established principles in excise matters.