9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (6) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Appellants challenging imposition of penalty after dropping duty demand - Interpretation of Rule 173-Q and Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules - Validity of penalty imposition under Rule 173-Q Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise dropping a duty demand but imposing a penalty on the appellants under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants were manufacturers of leather garments and had failed to pay duty, obtain a license, or follow proper procedures between 1986 and 1989. The initial duty demand was reduced to Rs. 14,76,495, with a penalty proposed under various rules. The Tribunal initially set aside the duty demand and penalty but remanded the case. In the subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner found the duty demand time-barred and dropped it due to substantial exports by the appellants. However, a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 was imposed for violations of Rule 174 and Chapter IX, citing a relevant legal precedent. The appellants challenged the penalty imposition, arguing that it was unjust after dropping the duty demand. The Commissioner defended the penalty as mandatory under Rule 173-Q for non-compliance with Rule 174 and Chapter IX. The Commissioner's decision to drop the duty demand but impose a penalty was based on the appellants' failure to file proper declarations and comply with Chapter IX rules. The Commissioner's findings were upheld as legally valid, citing the mandatory nature of Rule 173-Q and the penalty provisions for contraventions to evade duty payment. The Tribunal acknowledged the technical grounds for dropping the duty demand but upheld the penalty imposition as legal and valid. The penalty amount of Rs. 1,25,000 was deemed excessive and reduced to Rs. 50,000 considering the circumstances. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, except for the modification in the penalty amount, as the imposition of the penalty under Rule 173-Q was found to be justified based on the violations of Rule 174 and Chapter IX.
|
