2017 (9) TMI 1553 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/s 11AC - undervalued the goods sold from their depots - the respondent had deposited the entire amount of differential duty together with interest - Held that - The lower authority had not examined the facts of the case in the light of the ingredients under Section 11AC of the Act - the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh with respect to imposition of penalty u/s 11AC of the Act - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Allegation of Undervaluation and Deposit of Differential Duty:
The respondent was accused of deliberately undervaluing goods sold from their depots, leading to a Show Cause Notice being issued. The respondent had paid the entire amount of differential duty along with interest. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice but did not impose a penalty due to the duty being deposited before the issuance of the notice, following a precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a previous case.

2. Appeal and Impugned Order:
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the decision not to impose a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The Advocate for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the need for penalty imposition. On the other hand, the Advocate for the respondent cited a different Supreme Court decision, arguing against the imposition of penalty.

4. Analysis of Section 11AC and Supreme Court Decisions:
Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act allows for the imposition of a penalty in cases of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority had not properly examined the facts of the case in light of the requirements under Section 11AC. Referencing a Supreme Court case, it was highlighted that the timing of duty payment, whether before or after a notice, does not affect the liability for a penalty.

5. Remand and Reconsideration:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC. The authority was instructed to consider the case based on the observations made, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant. Both parties were granted the opportunity to present evidence in support of their positions.

6. Outcome:
Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed by way of remand, indicating that the issue of penalty imposition under Section 11AC needed further review and consideration by the adjudicating authority.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further examination regarding the imposition of a penalty under the Central Excise Act.