2010 (7) TMI 142 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty - Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Non mentioning of rule 25 in the show cause notice Held that - . In the show cause notice, as pointed above, not only the allegations are made in detail as to how the appellant removed the goods from its factory without invoice but it is also specifically mentioned that by the aforesaid act, the appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules. Thus, the appellant was put on clear notice as to what kind of violation it had made. The penalty is a consequence thereof and, therefore, non-mentioning of Rule 25 of the Rules was mere inadvertent omission. penalty confirmed

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without its mention in the show cause notice.

Analysis:
The appeal raised the issue of whether the Department was justified in imposing a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without specifically citing this provision in the show cause notice. The show cause notice accused the appellant of contravening Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, among other rules. The Department imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 under Rule 25 of the Rules and another penalty under Rule 13(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant challenged only the penalty under Rule 25. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the non-mentioning of the rule in the show cause notice did not vitiate the proceedings, citing various judgments supporting this view. The Tribunal also affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the nature of the violation was clearly disclosed to the appellant, and therefore, the penalty was justified.

The appellant contended that the penalty under Rule 25 should not have been imposed as it was not invoked in the show cause notice. The appellant referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Amrit Foods case, emphasizing the necessity of specifying the exact nature of the contravention before imposing a penalty. However, the Court noted that the appellant was adequately informed about the contravention of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the show cause notice. The Court emphasized that the purpose of notifying the contravention is to ensure the principles of natural justice are followed, allowing the appellant to effectively respond. As the appellant was clearly informed of the allegations against them, the Court found no prejudice caused and upheld the decision of the authorities below.

In conclusion, the Court found that the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was rightly imposed, despite its non-mention in the show cause notice. The Court upheld the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, emphasizing that the appellant was adequately informed of the contravention, allowing for a proper defense. The judgment highlighted the importance of notifying the nature of the violation to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld.