2017 (5) TMI 953 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of personal penalty u/r 26 - The Revenue contested the impugned order on the ground that the facility of closure of proceedings as contemplated in Section 11A (2) is not applicable for the proceedings for confiscation of finished goods/raw material u/r 25 and also for imposition of penalty u/r 26 - Held that - Admittedly, the case against the respondent is with reference to the duty demand and improper accounting. There is a single notice for both the parties (manufacturing unit and the Director). The proceedings are common and the matter is same. The interpretation of Revenue that the proceedings under Rule 25 and Rule 26 will continue to hold good, even after payment of full duty liability alongwith interest and 25% of penalty, is against the provisions of Section 11A (2). In Raman Gandhi vs. CCE, Delhi 2015 (3) TMI 1110 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the Tribunal concluded that if against a show cause notice the main party paid duty, interest and 25% duty as penalty, then the proceedings initiated through the show cause notice comes to an end. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Improper accounting and non-payment of Central Excise duty on Gutka manufactured and cleared by the respondent, applicability of Section 11A (2) of the Act, proceedings for confiscation of goods and penalty under Rule 25 and Rule 26.

Analysis:
The case involved a situation where a show cause notice was issued to the respondent for improper accounting and non-payment of Central Excise duty on Gutka. The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand, confiscated goods, and imposed penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and 25% penalty but set aside the confiscation of goods and penalty on the Director. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the closure of proceedings under Section 11A (2) does not apply to confiscation and penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26. However, the Tribunal noted that the provision states that proceedings shall be conclusive upon payment of duty, interest, and penalty, and the interpretation of the Revenue was against the law.

The Tribunal referred to previous cases and held that when full duty is paid within the stipulated time along with interest and 25% penalty, all proceedings related to the show cause notice come to an end. The legislative intent behind this optional scheme is to settle disputes early and expedite the collection of dues. The Tribunal emphasized that the proceedings against the main party conclude upon payment, as seen in the case of Raman Gandhi vs. CCE, Delhi. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's analysis focused on the applicability of Section 11A (2) and the conclusive nature of proceedings upon payment of duty, interest, and penalty. The judgment highlighted the legislative intent behind the scheme to expedite dispute resolution and emphasized that all related proceedings end upon full payment. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous rulings and upheld the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.