2010 (3) TMI 522 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty Reduced- The main grievance of the revenue is that the Tribunal without any jurisdiction has reduced the penalty levied under Section 11AC to Rs. 1, 200/- and similarly reduced the penalty to Rs. 14, 500/- and set aside the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 10.00 lakh under Rule 173Q. Held that- order passed by Tribunal without assigning reason set aside. Tribunal to consider the case afresh on merits following relevant judgments of Supreme Court and statutory provisions.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging legality and correctness of orders passed by CESTAT, reduction of penalties under various sections of Central Excise Act and Rules, jurisdiction of the Tribunal in reducing penalties without assigning reasons.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the orders passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore, regarding the reduction of penalties under different provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules. The appellant raised substantial questions of law related to the legality and correctness of the Tribunal's decision in reducing penalties imposed for willful misstatement and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal had reduced the penalties without providing any reasons, which was a point of contention for the revenue. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal must consider the relevant provisions of law and the cause shown by the assessee before granting relief. As the Tribunal failed to do so and did not assign any reason for its decision, the Court set aside the order and allowed the appeal without delving into the substantial questions of law.

The main grievance of the revenue was that the Tribunal had reduced the penalties without jurisdiction, such as reducing the penalty under Section 11AC and setting aside the penalty under Rule 173Q. The Court noted that the Tribunal's actions lacked a proper consideration of the circumstances under which such powers could be exercised and whether they were supported by relevant legal provisions. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal must assess the provisions of law and the defense presented by the assessee before granting relief. Since the Tribunal failed to undertake this analysis and did not provide any rationale for its decision, the Court set aside the order and allowed the appeal, leaving all contentions open for further consideration by the Tribunal based on Supreme Court judgments and relevant provisions of the Excise Act.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the Tribunal's duty to consider the legal provisions and the defense presented by the parties before reducing penalties under the Central Excise Act and Rules. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions and ensuring that relief granted is supported by law. The appeal was allowed, highlighting the need for proper consideration of all aspects before reducing penalties in excise matters.