2017 (8) TMI 777 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - interest - compounded levy scheme - Appellant defaulted in discharging their duty liability for the period from November 1997 to March 1998, which was paid later - Held that - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs CCE 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that demand of interest as well as the imposition of penalty under the said provisions of Central Excise Rules is ultra vires - interest and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Duty liability, interest, penalty

Duty Liability:
The appellants, who are manufacturers of TOR steels falling under Chapter 72, defaulted in discharging their duty liability for a specific period. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty along with interest and penalty under relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty liability, interest, and imposed an equal penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner redetermined the duty payable but confirmed the interest and penalty. The appellant had already paid the duty liability and contested only the interest and penalty.

Interest and Penalty:
The appellant contested the demand of interest and penalty, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. The appellant argued that the demand of interest and imposition of penalty under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules were ultra vires based on the Supreme Court's ruling. The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

Judgment:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had already discharged the duty liability but disputed the demand for interest and penalty. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant, the Tribunal held that the demand for interest and penalty under the Central Excise Rules was unsustainable and needed to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to set aside the interest and penalty while confirming the duty liability. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in the stated terms. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member (Judicial).