2004 (10) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the correctness of the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The duty in question had been deposited by the respondents before the show cause notice was issued. The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 each in both appeals, considering the duty amounts and the early deposit by the respondents. The ld. JDR argued that the penalty should be equal to the evaded duty, citing precedents like Ramesh Kumar P. Singhvi v. CCE and Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India. However, the Tribunal, in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner, held that Section 11AC sets the maximum penalty limit, allowing discretion to impose a lesser penalty. The Tribunal's decision was followed by the Commissioner, and no contrary judgments were presented. The Tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the ld. JDR, stating they did not mandate maximum penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, noting the proper application of the Tribunal's precedent, the case's circumstances, the duty amounts, and the early deposit by the respondents. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.