2022 (3) TMI 860 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of Central Excise Duty - reversal of 5% of value of exempted product - penalty under Rule 25(1) (d) of Central excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Appellant paid the confirmed demand under protest and now express its willingness to pay the penalty of ₹ 1,45,700/-. Rest of demands were dropped and what is required to be realised is interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on confirmed demand. As reveals from the case record the disputed period was between March, 2010 and May, 2010, duty demands were ultimately confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 5.01.2012 and within 2 months appellant had paid the same on 02.03.2012 under protest. Availing Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for penalty component, appellant would have got substantial reduction to the extent of 1/3 of such penalty imposed on it. Now, since appellant has expressed its willingness to pay the entire penalty amount, interest for such a period being too meger, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and to put an end to the litigation that is being carried out for over 12 years, such a genuine request of the appellant can be considered favourably to secure ends of justice by invoking Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is directed to pay penalty only of ₹ 1,45,700/- within 3 months of receipt of this order.

Summary

Issues:
- Request for adjournment due to change in counsel
- Appellant's willingness to pay penalty without additional cost
- Confirmation of duty by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Appellant's payment under protest
- Invocation of Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules

Request for Adjournment:
The appellant was absent, citing the demise of their previous counsel and the ongoing process of appointing a new advocate. They expressed willingness to pay a penalty without any additional cost to close the appeal, as relevant documents with the deceased advocate could not be traced, hindering the engagement of a new advocate immediately.

Confirmation of Duty and Payment under Protest:
The duty amount of &8377; 1,45,700/- was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for clearances during March 2010 to May 2010. The appellant paid the confirmed demand under protest within two months of confirmation. The order also dropped other demands and imposed a penalty of &8377; 1,45,700/- under Rule 25(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Invocation of Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules:
Considering the appeal's age of over 12 years and the appellant's expression of willingness to pay the entire penalty amount, the tribunal invoked Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, to put an end to the prolonged litigation. The appellant's genuine request to pay the penalty was viewed favorably to secure the ends of justice.

Decision and Order:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay a penalty of &8377; 1,45,700/- within three months of receiving the order. The order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was modified accordingly. The judgment was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the finality of the decision.