2005 (11) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal by Revenue
- Reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Interpretation of intention of evader for penalty imposition

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), where the demand of duty was confirmed, but the penalty was reduced.

2. During the hearing, no one appeared for the Respondents. The learned Jt. C.D.R. reiterated the grounds of appeal.

3. Reference was made to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi-III v. Machino Montel (I) Ltd., where the Larger Bench refrained from imposing penalty or charging interest if duty was paid before the show cause notice. However, a recent decision in the matter of Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. by a two Member Bench attempted to refine the Larger Bench's decision. It was held that the intention of the evader can be inferred, and in such cases, penalties should be imposed, even if the duty was paid after being pointed out.

4. After examining the case record and hearing the learned Jt. CDR, it was concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), especially in light of the more liberal and proactive approach evolving in dealing with fiscal matters.

5. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. This decision signifies a shift towards a more liberal and humanitarian approach in handling fiscal matters, as indicated by the evolving stance of the Tribunal.

(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court)