2010 (5) TMI 253 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty- Whether the Tribunal, write in upholding that penalty is not leviable in the matter? The respondent-assessee are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. On 16-3-2001. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, the respondent-assessee replied to the same. After considering the reply, the assessing authority passed the order dt. 17-9-2001. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), in turn, rejected the appeal and upheld the original order passed by the jurisdictional competent authority. Held that- such adjudication be made in presence of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Show Cause Notice presently not whisper anything regarding fraud, misrepresentation etc. No good ground made by revenue. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's decision on reversal of credit before issuance of show cause notice.
2. Tribunal's decision on penalty imposition.
3. Classification of goods for credit of Special Excise Duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding the reversal of credit before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal upheld the reversal of credit by the respondent, which was not contested by the appellant. The High Court examined this issue and found that the show cause notice issued on 16-3-2001 did not mention any fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no basis for the appellant's argument against the Tribunal's decision. The Court referred to a previous case where it was established that interest and penalty could be imposed only if excise duty had not been levied due to fraud, collusion, willful statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of the law. Since none of these elements were present in the current case, the Court dismissed the appellant's argument on this issue.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertained to the Tribunal's decision on the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal, following established legal principles, held that penalty was not leviable in this case. The appellant argued that the respondent had evaded tax, but the Court noted that this aspect had not been adequately considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court ultimately sided with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that penalty could only be imposed under specific circumstances, none of which were present in this case. Therefore, the Court rejected the appellant's contention on the issue of penalty imposition.

Issue 3:
The final issue involved the classification of goods for the credit of Special Excise Duty. The Court referenced a previous case involving the respondent-assessee and highlighted that interest and penalty could be imposed if there was an adjudication under the relevant section of the law. The Court noted that the show cause notice in this case did not mention any fraudulent activities or misrepresentations. As a result, the Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments against the Tribunal's decision. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondent on all the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as lacking merit after thoroughly analyzing and addressing each issue raised by the appellant. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions on the reversal of credit before the show cause notice, penalty imposition, and the classification of goods for the credit of Special Excise Duty based on the legal principles and facts presented in the case.