2018 (1) TMI 486 - AT - Central Excise

Non-speaking order - case of Revenue is that the order of the Commissioner is non-speaking inasmuch as the question of imposition of penalty is not discussed - Held that - there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is passed by the Commissioner after considering all material on record - the Commissioner has held that there was a bona fide on the part of the assessee for not paying the duty to the Government - the duty has been paid which was appropriated to the Government account by the Commissioner - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Clearance of excisable goods without proper invoices and failure to file statutory ER-1 returns.
- Bona fide nature of the assessee's actions in not paying duty to the Government.

Analysis:

Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25 and 27:
The Revenue contended that the impugned order lacked sustainability as the Commissioner did not impose penalties under Rule 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite invoking these rules in the show-cause notices. The Revenue argued that the assessee cleared goods without proper invoices, violating Rule 11, and failed to file ER-1 returns, breaching Rule 12. The Revenue insisted that penalties should be imposed under the aforementioned rules. However, the counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order, emphasizing that the Commissioner thoroughly considered all facts and documents, leading to the appropriate disposal of show-cause notices. The Commissioner's decision to drop proceedings proposed in Show-Cause Notice 15/2011 was supported by the counsel, who highlighted that the Commissioner provided grounds for not imposing penalties under Rule 25 and 27.

Clearance of Excisable Goods and Failure to File Returns:
The case involved the clearance of excisable goods without proper invoices and the failure to file statutory ER-1 returns by the assessee. The Department identified discrepancies in the assessee's operations from November 2006 to March 2010, where goods were cleared without Central Excise Registration and appropriate duty payment. The Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and appropriated the amount paid by the assessee to the Government account. The Revenue challenged the impugned order for not imposing penalties, while the assessee defended the order, emphasizing the Commissioner's detailed consideration of all aspects.

Bona Fide Nature of the Assessee's Actions:
The Commissioner, after reviewing submissions and evidence from both parties, found no fault in the impugned order. The Commissioner acknowledged the bona fide actions of the assessee in not paying duty to the Government, noting that the duty amount was paid under protest and promptly appropriated to the Government account. The Commissioner upheld the decision that there was no infirmity in the order, dismissing both appeals of the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the assessee's genuine intentions in promptly paying the duty amount to the Government, which was considered a significant factor in the final decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised concerning the imposition of penalties, clearance of excisable goods, and the assessee's bona fide actions, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes.