2018 (11) TMI 224 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 25 of CER - no justification given for penalty - Held that - Admittedly, there is no allegation that the assessee removed excisable goods in contravention of the provisions of the Rules. Therefore, Sub-Clause (a) of Rule 25(1) would not be attracted. The record of the proceedings shows that the assessee had accounted for the excisable goods. Therefore, contingency contemplated in Clause (b) of Rule 25(1) of the Rules also will not be attracted. As the assessee possesses a registration certificate, Clause (c) of Rule 25(1) cannot be invoked. Thus, the Revenue, to sustain the penalty, should bring the case of the assessee under Clause (d) of Rule 25(1) of the Rules, where they could show that the assessee contravened the provisions of the Rules with intent to evade payment of duty - Admittedly, the Tribunal while passing the impugned order did not give any reason as to why the penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- should be confirmed. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 without justification.
2. Application of penalty under Rule 25 when specific situations are not prevalent.
3. Consideration of penalty when the appellant is a sick company under BIFR.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of penalty without justification
The appeal challenged the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal confirmed a penalty of ?5,00,000 without providing reasons for its decision. The Tribunal should have proven that the assessee contravened the rules with intent to evade duty to justify the penalty. However, no such allegation was made against the appellant. The Tribunal's failure to explain the basis for imposing the penalty was a critical flaw in the decision.

Issue 2: Application of penalty without prevalent situations
The Rules specify conditions under which a penalty can be imposed, such as removal of goods in contravention of rules or non-accounting of goods. None of these situations applied to the appellant. The record showed that the appellant had accounted for the goods and possessed a registration certificate, ruling out the applicability of the mentioned clauses. Therefore, the Tribunal should have invoked the clause related to contravention with intent to evade duty, which was not established.

Issue 3: Consideration of penalty for a sick company under BIFR
The appellant's financial distress and involvement in proceedings before BIFR were crucial factors. A similar case precedent was cited where the Tribunal set aside a penalty due to the company's financial constraints. The Tribunal's failure to provide a rationale for sustaining the penalty contrasted with the circumstances of the appellant being in deep financial distress. The absence of mens rea or intent to evade duty further weakened the case for imposing the penalty. Precedents and legal interpretations supported the appellant's position, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the necessity of justifying penalties under specific legal provisions, considering the factual circumstances and intent of the party involved. The decision provided clarity on the application of penalties in cases of financial distress and the importance of establishing intent to evade duty for penalty imposition.