2019 (2) TMI 204 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty - delay in payment of cess - Penalty u/r 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - suppression of facts or not? - Tea Cess for the period Jun. 13 to Dec. 13 - Held that - No evidence is established that the appellants have suppressed facts in order to evade payment of Cess. On being pointed out, they had paid the Cess. It is argued by learned counsel, that the delay occurred due to financial hardships, the instalments due to the banks, payment of wages etc., There was no intention to evade payment of Cess. The penalty imposed is harsh and unwarranted is set aside - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of non-payment of Cess
- Imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Financial difficulties leading to delay in payment

Analysis:
1. Allegation of non-payment of Cess: The appellants, who are manufacturers of Black Tea, were issued a show-cause notice for non-payment of Cess amounting to ?3,72,736 for the period Jun. '13 to Dec. '13. The original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal.

2. Imposition of penalties: The appellants, through their counsel, argued that the penalties imposed were unjustified as there was no allegation of suppression of facts to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority did not provide reasons for the penalties other than mentioning violations of law and delayed filing of returns. The appellants attributed the delay in payment to financial difficulties and non-receipt of payments from customers. The Authorized Representative supported the penalties, claiming willful suppression of facts due to the department's interference.

3. Financial difficulties leading to delay in payment: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, focused on the penalties imposed under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Upon review, it found no evidence of intentional suppression of facts by the appellants to avoid Cess payment. The appellants had paid the Cess, and the delay was attributed to financial hardships, bank instalments, and wage payments. Considering these factors, the Tribunal deemed the penalties harsh and unwarranted, setting them aside and partially allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on the lack of evidence of intentional evasion and the appellants' financial difficulties leading to delayed payment.