2017 (7) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - safety gears (helmets) - quantum of redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the original authority has imposed the redemption fine of ₹ 3,24,592/- whereas the duty involved on the goods were to the tune of ₹ 2,11,530/- which according to me is on a higher side and therefore, I reduce the redemption fine to the extent of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Penalty - Held that - since the appellants have paid the duty before the issue of show-cause notice, therefore, he was entitled to avail the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of the duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act but this benefit has not been given by both the authorities and therefore, I grant the benefit of Section 11AC and held that appellant is entitled to the availment of reduced penalty of 25%. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) upholding Order-in-Original (OIO) regarding Central Excise duty, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on manufacturing company.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Background: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing safety gears, faced allegations of attempting to clear goods without paying Central Excise duty. The Preventive Unit seized unaccounted helmets and issued a show-cause notice for duty demand, interest, confiscation, and penalties. The OIO confirmed the duty demand, imposed fines and penalties, leading to the appeal.

2. Contentions: The appellant argued that the seized helmets were not cleared goods, final inspections were pending, and no duty liability existed. They challenged the redemption fine, penalties, and confiscation, claiming compliance with Central Excise Rules and incorrect imposition of penalties.

3. Defence: The Respondent defended the Commissioner's decision, asserting that all aspects were considered before upholding the OIO.

4. Judgment: After reviewing submissions and documents, the Judicial Member noted the payments made by the appellants before the show-cause notice. The Member found discrepancies in the redemption fine and penalty amounts imposed, leading to modifications in favor of the appellant. The Member reduced the redemption fine, granted the benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11AC, and ordered the refund of excess payment made by the appellant.

5. Conclusion: Ultimately, the appeal was partially allowed, modifying the impugned order to reduce the redemption fine, grant the benefit of reduced penalty, and order the refund of excess payment. The judgment aimed to rectify the discrepancies in the penalties imposed and provide relief to the appellant based on legal provisions and payment records.