9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1077 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty - SSI Exemption - crossing of threshold exemption limit - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 - whether the appellant is required to discharge penalty equal to the duty since they have paid almost entire amount of duty on initiation of the proceeding for recovery? - HELD THAT - The authorities below have not extended the benefit to discharge 25% of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant company. Consequently, the appellant company is eligible to discharge 25% of the penalty imposed subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty on the Director and the employee - HELD THAT - There is no evidence on record to suggest their personal involvement in the case. In these circumstances, imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Director and the employee is unwarranted and unjustified. Appeal disposed off.
Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE for exceeding clearance value in the previous year, imposition of duty, interest, and penalty. Dispute over penalty imposition on company individuals under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and non-extension of 25% penalty discharge benefit under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal denying the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE due to exceeding the clearance value in the previous year. The appellant claimed confusion in computing the clearance value for the financial year 2004-05, including exempted and non-excisable goods. The duty demand was reduced after adjudication, but penalty imposition was contested. The appellant argued that penalty on company individuals under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was unjustified. 2. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the duty liability was not disputed, and the appellant failed to inform the department about the clearance computation for the financial year 2004-05 before availing the exemption, justifying the penalty imposition and invoking the extended period. The authorities below did not extend the benefit to discharge 25% of the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found no merit in the appellant's argument against penalty imposition for wrongly availing the SSI benefit. However, they considered whether the appellant should discharge penalty equal to the duty paid during the recovery process. The Tribunal noted that the benefit to discharge 25% of the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not extended to the appellant, making them eligible for such discharge subject to conditions. Regarding the penalty on the Director and employee, the Tribunal found no evidence of their personal involvement, deeming the imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 unwarranted and unjustified, thus setting it aside. 4. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by the appellant company, extending the benefit to discharge 25% of the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, subject to fulfillment of conditions. Appeals by individuals were also allowed. The judgments were pronounced in court, disposing of the appeals accordingly.
|
