2017 (3) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty u/r 25(1)(a) of the CER, 2002 - default in payment of duty for the period from 05.12.2011 to 30.08.2012 in terms of Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002 - Section 11A(2) applicable in the case or not? - Held that - in the case of CC Versus Powerica Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 665 - Karnataka High Court , it was held that if the duty is paid along with interest, then the assessee is not liable to pay the penalty - imposition of penalty u/r 25 not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty by the Commissioner.
2. Alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules by the appellant.
3. Applicability of penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Consideration of statutory provisions and previous judgments by the Tribunal and High Courts.
5. Imposition of penalty in case of duty payment before the issue of show-cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the Commissioner's order confirming the demand, interest, and penalty on the appellant for manufacturing and clearing branded readymade garments with delayed duty payments. The duty liability for various months was not paid on time, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?5 lakh under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner found the appellant in contravention of Rules 6, 8, and 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant argued that they had paid the duty along with interest before the show-cause notice, citing Section 11A(2) to support their claim that no penalty should be levied in such cases.

2. The appellant's counsel contended that the impugned order did not consider statutory provisions and relevant judgments on the issue. They argued that the show-cause notice was not maintainable as the duty had been paid along with interest before the notice was issued. Citing previous rulings, the appellant sought relief from the penalty. The Tribunal reviewed the case law presented by the appellant and noted that if duty is paid before the show-cause notice, penalty should not be imposed. Rulings from the High Court of Karnataka supported this stance, stating that payment of duty with interest exempts the assessee from penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of timely duty payments and the consequences of delayed payments under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. By considering the statutory provisions and past judgments, the Tribunal clarified that penalty imposition is not warranted when duty is paid before the issuance of a show-cause notice. This case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations and consequences for non-compliance in excise duty matters, emphasizing the significance of adhering to payment timelines to avoid penalties and legal actions.