2017 (3) TMI 1122 - AT - Central Excise

Reduction in the quantum pf penalty - whether the option for payment of reduced amount of penalty should be made available to assessee or not? - Held that - the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the Case of K. P. Pouches 2008 (1) TMI 296 - DELHI HIGH COURT have held that adjudicating authority under the Act should explicitly state the option available to the assessee u/s 11AC - The CBEC vide Circular dated 22.05.2008 has clarified that the Adjudicating Authority should specifically state in the order the option to pay reduced amount of penalty - option given by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned dated 12.10.2009 for payment of reduced amount of penalty under Section 11AC ibid is in conformity with the statutory provisions - appeal disposed off - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Reduction in penalty by Adjudicating Authority and compliance with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment involves an appeal by both the Revenue and the assessee against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, regarding a reduction in the quantum of penalty from 100% to 25%. The Revenue's grievance is that this reduction is not in line with statutory provisions. The Revenue argues that the Adjudicating Authority failed to provide the option to pay 25% of the reduced penalty within 30 days, as required by Section 11AC of the Act. The Respondent contends that the Adjudicating Authority did provide this option through a subsequent order, and the Respondent complied by depositing 25% of the penalty amount. The Respondent cites a Board's Circular and various judicial judgments in support of their position.

The Adjudicating Authority is required to explicitly state the option available to the assessee under Section 11AC of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches. A Circular by CBEC further clarifies this requirement. The issue has also been addressed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in several cases, including Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works and G.P. Prestress Concrete Works. Appeals by the Revenue against judgments in similar cases were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

The Tribunal, after hearing arguments from both sides and examining the records, upholds the option given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for payment of the reduced penalty amount under Section 11AC as compliant with statutory provisions. Citing the settled position of law and the lack of infirmity in the impugned order, the Tribunal dismisses the appeals filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee are also dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment affirms the compliance with Section 11AC and the validity of the penalty reduction, based on the legal precedents and statutory provisions cited during the proceedings.