2001 (7) TMI 567 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
2. Misdeclaration of 'place of removal' in price declaration.
3. Consideration of remand directions by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Allegations of suppression of facts by the Appellants.
5. Interpretation of remand directions by the Commissioner.
6. Applicability of penalty as per the decision in Escorts JCB Ltd.
7. Jurisdiction of the Larger Bench in remand directions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Appellants manufactured chewing tobacco and were penalized for misdeclaring the 'place of removal' in their price declaration. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and penalty, leading to the appeal.

2. The Appellants argued that they did not suppress any facts and complied with the rules by filing the price declaration as required. They contended that the burden of proving the extended period of limitation lies with the Department and that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider crucial aspects while disposing of the remand directions.

3. The Commissioner, in the impugned Order, wrongly assumed that the Tribunal upheld the duty demand under the extended period of Section 11A, which was not the case. The Appellants emphasized that the remand directions required a detailed examination of the applicability of Section 11AC and the mandatory imposition of duty demand, citing a relevant legal precedent.

4. The Adjudicating Authority failed to address key aspects outlined in the remand directions, leading to a dispute regarding the imposition of the penalty. The Appellants argued that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal should have sent the case back to the Regular Bench after answering the reference.

5. The Commissioner's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the remand directions, focusing solely on the penalty issue. The Appellants contended that the Commissioner did not follow the broader scope of the remand directions, which included considerations beyond penalty imposition.

6. The Respondent argued that the appeal was against the decision of the Commissioner in de novo adjudication post remand by the Larger Bench. The decision in Escorts JCB Ltd. was cited as relevant, and it was suggested that any grievances should be addressed through rectification of mistake or appeal in a higher forum.

7. The Tribunal observed that the Larger Bench had remanded the matter specifically regarding the penalty issue. The Commissioner's decision was deemed appropriate within the scope of the remand directions, and the Appellants were advised to seek redress through proper legal channels if dissatisfied with the judgment.

In conclusion, the appeal was rejected as the Commissioner's decision on the penalty issue was found to be in line with the remand directions, and the Appellants did not present sufficient grounds for challenging the judgment.