2018 (8) TMI 81 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of penalty - Non-payment of duty - manufacture of excisable goods for continuous period of three years but no duty paid - appellant were farmers and claimed ignorance of law - Held that - Non-payment of excise duty on the manufacture of excisable goods came to the knowledge of the Department on the basis of intelligence and visit by the officer to the factory premises of the appellant. There is no dispute of the fact that duty has not been paid continuously for three years. It is difficult to appreciate that the appellant has not paid the excise duty due to ignorance of law, which cannot be a defense for non-compliance with the provisions of Central Excise law - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PUNCT- APP-II-000-260 & 261-17-18 dated 8.11.2017
- Failure to discharge duty on manufactured goods
- Ignorance of Central Excise law as a defense for non-payment
- Request for waiver of penalty

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. PUNCT- APP-II-000-260 & 261-17-18 dated 8.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Pune-III. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, specifically Jaggery and Jaggery Powder, failed to discharge the duty on the goods cleared for home consumption during the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15. The Department issued a demand notice for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty, which was confirmed after adjudication. The appellant, claiming ignorance of Central Excise law, sought a waiver of penalty without disputing the duty and interest liability.

The appellant's representative argued that the appellants, primarily farmers, were not familiar with Central Excise law and procedures. They started the business after obtaining a loan but failed to pay the appropriate central excise duty due to their lack of knowledge. The representative contended that the appellants were unaware of their entitlement to credit on inputs and capital goods used in manufacturing excisable goods. It was emphasized that the non-payment of duty was not intentional but a result of ignorance of the law, warranting a waiver of penalty.

In response, the Revenue's representative highlighted that the appellants had continuously manufactured excisable goods for three years without paying the duty. The Revenue rejected the argument that ignorance of the law could justify a penalty waiver, emphasizing the obligation to comply with duty payment requirements regardless of awareness.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed manufactured and cleared excisable goods without paying central excise duty from 2012-13 to 2014-15. It was noted that the appellant did not possess Central Excise registration for manufacturing excisable goods. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's failure to pay duty was not excusable by ignorance of the law, as ignorance could not serve as a defense for non-compliance with Central Excise law. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments for a penalty waiver.