9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 11 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - confiscation - redemption fine - manufacture of goods in the brand name which was not registered - HELD THAT - In the instant matter the appellant is neither challenging the Central Excise duty nor interest or penalty, rather the same have been accepted and deposited by the Appellant immediately after the passing of the Order-in-Original by the Adjudicating Authority - Had the department accepted the request of the Appellant and granted the benefit of notification No.01/2011 dated March 01, 2011 as amended vide Notification No.16/ 2012 CE, dated 17.3.2012, which was later on appreciated and accepted by the Adjudicating Authority, then the matter would have been settled even without the issuance of show cause notice - The Appellant had shown the bonafide by depositing the amount of duty along with interest and penalty and did not contest the same. In view of the facts of the present case this is not a fit case for confiscation of the goods and this case cannot be equated with the case of attempt to clear the goods clandestinely - the redemption fine is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Challenge to imposition of Redemption Fine under Rule 25, Central Excise Rules, 2002. Analysis: In this case, the Appellant challenged the imposition of a Redemption Fine of ?1,12,650 under Rule 25, Central Excise Rules, 2002, which was reduced to ?75,000 by the first Appellate Authority. The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing kitchen and bath accessories of steel, was found by the Anti Evasion unit of Central Excise to be manufacturing excisable goods under an unregistered brand name and clearing these goods without paying central excise duty. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation of seized goods and demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to ?9,45,847 along with interest and penalty. The Appellant argued that they were unaware of manufacturing branded goods and immediately obtained Central Excise Registration upon realizing the issue. They paid the entire duty amount, interest, and penalty after the Order-in-Original, except for the Redemption Fine. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the Appellant's contention regarding the duty rate and recalculated the duty to ?1,57,031. The Appellant was given the option to redeem the confiscated goods by paying a Redemption Fine of ?1,12,650, which was reduced to ?75,000 by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue cited two decisions to support his submissions, but the Tribunal noted that those cases lacked the crucial fact of duty payment by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that each case must be examined based on its own facts and that a standard formula for Redemption Fine imposition cannot be applied universally. Since the Appellant had paid the duty, interest, and penalty without contest, the Tribunal found the case unsuitable for confiscation of goods and distinguished it from attempts to clear goods clandestinely. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Redemption Fine, as the Appellant only challenged its imposition in the appeal. Therefore, based on the specific facts of the case and the Appellant's compliance with duty payment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Redemption Fine, emphasizing the importance of considering individual circumstances in such matters.
|
