2018 (3) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

Applicability of Section 11AC (1)(d) of CEA - case of appellant is that said provision nowhere further applies to adjudicate the matter relatable to confiscations etc - Held that - the conclusion of proceedings in terms of sub section (d) is provided in respect of cases mentioned in sub-section (c). Sub-section (c) relates to the evasion of duty by reason of fraud or collusion. As such it has to be held that in cases of fraud conclusion etc., the entire proceedings would get finally concluded on an assessee depositing the dues as mentioned in sub-section (d), thus not permitted further adjudication relatable to the confiscation of the goods on the vehicle etc. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 11AC(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the conclusion of proceedings in cases of duty evasion and confiscation of goods.

Analysis:

1. Facts and Background: The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with copper wire rods cleared from the appellant's factory without payment of duty. The lower authorities initiated proceedings against the appellant for duty confirmation, interest, penalty, and confiscation of goods and the vehicle.

2. Interpretation of Section 11AC(1)(d): The appellant contended that Section 11AC(1)(d) provides for the conclusion of entire proceedings upon payment of duty, interest, and penalty, and does not relate to confiscation matters. The relevant section outlines penalties for non-levy or short-levy due to fraud, collusion, or misstatement.

3. Legal Provisions: The Tribunal examined Section 11AC(1)(c) and (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which specify penalties for duty evasion due to fraud or suppression of facts. Sub-section (d) allows for the conclusion of proceedings if duty demanded and interest are paid within 30 days of the show cause notice.

4. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument that confiscation can be adjudicated upon due to suppression of facts leading to duty evasion. It concluded that Section 11AC(1)(d) only applies to cases mentioned in sub-section (c) related to fraud or collusion, not confiscation matters. Therefore, upon payment of dues under sub-section (d), proceedings should conclude without further adjudication on confiscation.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's stance and set aside the impugned order, allowing both appeals with relief to the appellant. The judgment clarifies the application of Section 11AC(1)(d) in cases of duty evasion and confiscation, emphasizing the purpose of reducing litigation and concluding proceedings promptly upon payment of dues.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the interpretation of legal provisions, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the ultimate decision in favor of the appellant based on the specific application of Section 11AC(1)(d) in the context of duty evasion and confiscation issues.