2013 (4) TMI 52 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/s 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - utilizing Cenvat credit for payment of duty on certain clearances made even after committing continuance default of payment of duty. - Penalty for contravening the provisions of Rule 8(1), Rule 8(3A) and Rule 11(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Held that - Provisions of Rule 25 are not applicable to the present case for want of intent to evade payment of duty. It is also pertinent to note that the lower appellate authority vacated Section 11AC penalty after holding that the case was only of interpretation of law and the same involved only a delay in payment of duty. Nowhere in the impugned order is there any finding of the assessee having had any intent to evade payment of duty. - Penalty dropped - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravening provisions of Rule 8
- Interpretation of Rule 25 regarding intent to evade payment of duty
- Appeal against penalty imposed by the appellate authority

Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25: The appeal pertains to a show-cause notice proposing a penalty on the assessee under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravening provisions of Rule 8(1), Rule 8(3A), and Rule 11(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority imposed a penalty on the assessee under Section 11AC, which was appealed by the party. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the demand of duty but set aside the Section 11AC penalty, instead imposing a penalty under Rule 25. The current appeal challenges this penalty under Rule 25.

2. Interpretation of Rule 25: The show-cause notice invoked Rule 25 for imposing a penalty on the assessee for contravention of provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department alleged that the assessee utilized Cenvat credit for duty payment on clearances despite defaulting on duty payment. However, it was clarified that the assessee did not intend to evade duty but rather intended to pay it. The Tribunal noted that Rule 25 applies when there is an intent to evade payment of duty, which was found lacking in this case. The lower appellate authority also recognized this by vacating the Section 11AC penalty, emphasizing that the issue was a delay in payment without any intent to evade duty.

3. Appeal against Penalty: After reviewing the records and submissions, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 25 penalty was not applicable due to the absence of intent to evade duty. As a result, the Rule 25 penalty was set aside, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the assessee's actions did not demonstrate any intention to evade payment of duty, aligning with the provisions of Rule 25.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the correct application of Rule 25 concerning the intent to evade payment of duty, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed under Rule 25 due to the absence of such intent in the case at hand.