2018 (2) TMI 800 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest and penalty - demand has been made without raising any demand under Section 11A of CEA - Held that - no demand of interest and imposition of penalty can be made unless there is a determination of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act - Since in the instant case, there is no demand of duty and determination u/s 11A of the CEA, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty cannot sustain - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against demand of interest and imposition of penalty without raising any demand under Section 11A of Central Excise Act.

In this case, M/s. Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against the demand of interest and imposition of penalty without any prior demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant's counsel argued that the demand was invalid, citing the Tribunal's decision in the case of Smita Steel rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Eicher Demm, which was upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal, in the case of Eicher Demm, concluded that penalty under Rule 173Q cannot be imposed without any proceeding on a charge of duty evasion, emphasizing the necessity of a determination under Section 11A for invoking Sections 11AC and 11AB. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.

The Tribunal's decision in the case of Eicher Demm, which was upheld by the High Court, established the requirement for a determination of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act before demanding interest and imposing penalties. It was emphasized that Sections 11AC and 11AB can only be invoked when there has been a determination regarding evasion of duty under Section 11A. Since no adjudication proceedings under Section 11A or any other provisions had taken place in the present case, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty were deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the procedural necessity of establishing duty evasion before imposing penalties or demanding interest, ensuring a fair and lawful process in excise matters.

The judgment underscored the legal principle that penalties under Rule 173Q cannot be imposed without a proper determination of duty evasion under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's analysis reiterated that Sections 11AC and 11AB are applicable only when there is a clear determination regarding evasion of duty. By setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and ensuring that demands of interest and penalties are based on a valid determination under Section 11A. The decision provided clarity on the legal framework governing excise matters and emphasized the need for procedural compliance to uphold the principles of natural justice and fairness in such cases.