2015 (8) TMI 1178 - HC - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that - A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Stovec Industries Ltd., reported in 2013 (1) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that in view of instruction dated 17-8-2011, tax appeal below ₹ 10 lakh is not maintainable and this instruction also applies to the pending appeal. Following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, we dismiss this tax appeal as not maintainable - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of Central Excise Rules regarding non-accountal of manufactured goods and raw material in statutory registers.
2. Imposition of penalty and confiscation based on non-maintenance of statutory registers and confession of the assessee.
3. Appeal against imposition of redemption fine, Central Excise Duty demand, and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The Court had initially framed two substantial questions of law regarding the non-accountal of manufactured goods and raw material in statutory registers, which could potentially lead to penalties and confiscation under specific Central Excise Rules (Rules 173G(4), 173H, 173H(2)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944).
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs had imposed a redemption fine and demanded Central Excise Duty on finished goods and raw material, along with penalties on the assessee and another individual. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these orders, which were then challenged before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal set aside the Central Excise Duty demand on raw material, reduced the penalties, but affirmed the penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Revenue appealed the decision of the Tribunal, arguing that the excise duty and penalties involved were below the threshold of Rs. 10 lakhs.
4. Citing a previous decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Stovec Industries Ltd., the Court held that tax appeals below Rs. 10 lakhs were not maintainable as per an instruction dated 17-8-2011. Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, based on the precedent set by the Division Bench.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, detailing the legal aspects, decisions made by the authorities, and the final ruling of the Court based on relevant Central Excise Rules and precedents.