2017 (5) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - non-payment of Interest on delayed payment of duty - case of appellant is that there was a mistake committed by the appellant and on being pointed out, the appellant paid the duty - case of Revenue is that appellant has suppressed the relevant information from the department with an intention to evade duty, duty was paid but the interest was still not paid till the adjudication by the Commissioner (A) - Held that - the appellant did not pay interest before the issue of SCN but paid the same much after the decision of the Commissioner (A) - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting appellant's appeal and upholding Assistant Commissioner's order.
- Allegation of clearing waste oil without duty payment.
- Demand for interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Contention of appellant regarding settled issue and non-leviability of interest.
- Challenge to imposition of penalty.
- Arguments on suppression of facts and evasion of duty.
- Payment of interest post adjudication by Commissioner (A).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal and affirming the Assistant Commissioner's decision. The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing pump housing, being accused of clearing waste oil without paying duty, leading to a demand for interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that a previous decision by CESTAT had settled the issue, arguing against the leviability of interest when tax compliance is ensured upon department's notification.

2. During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the penalty imposed was not legally sustainable. They acknowledged a mistake in duty payment, rectified upon notification by the audit party. The appellant emphasized that there was no willful evasion of duty, citing a relevant case law. Although the interest amount was paid post the adjudication by Commissioner (A), the appellant maintained that there was no intent to evade payment, as the duty was reversed promptly upon identification of the error.

3. Conversely, the learned Assistant Representative contended that the appellant had suppressed crucial information to evade duty, emphasizing the delay in paying interest even after the Commissioner (A)'s decision. The imposition of mandatory penalty, along with the interest demand, was supported by the Assistant Representative, who argued against granting the appellant the benefit of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to the delayed interest payment.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and facts presented, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (A), stating that the appellant's delayed payment of interest post the Commissioner (A)'s ruling did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the Order-in-Appeal. The operative portion of the order was pronounced on 27/03/2017.