2018 (3) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of reduced penalty - Held that - appellant had already paid up the duty liability and interest well before issue of SCN. Accordingly, they are very much entitled to avail benefit of reduced penalty. In the circumstances, Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his brief in ordering 100% penalty before April 2011 and 50% penalty thereafter - Appeal is allowed to the extent of restricting the penalty payable by the appellant only under Rule 15 (2) of CCR 2004 / 11AC of C.E. Act to 25% of the penalty imposed by the original authority.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Change of cause title from Commissioner of Service Tax to Commissioner of GST & Central Excise.
2. Non-reversal of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs on imported inputs.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue 1: Change of cause title
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue for changing the cause title from Commissioner of Service Tax to "The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate" due to the introduction of GST and the resulting change in jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Non-reversal of SAD on imported inputs
The dispute revolved around the non-reversal of the component of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs on imported inputs cleared to the job worker of the appellant. The appellant reversed the credit of SAD and paid interest thereon after the lapse was detected during an audit. The adjudication order confirmed the demand with interest and imposed a penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated the penalty percentages for periods before and after April 2011, leading to the appeal.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that they had paid 25% of the penalty based on the original authority's order and benefited from reduced penalty as they had cleared the duty liability and interest before the show cause notice was issued. The advocate cited a Supreme Court case to support their position. The Appellate Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's ruling, held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, restricting the penalty to 25% of the original authority's imposition under Rule 15 (2) of CCR 2004 / 11AC of C.E. Act.

This judgment addressed the issues of changing the cause title due to the introduction of GST, the non-reversal of SAD on imported inputs, and the imposition of penalties under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the change of cause title, ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the penalty imposition, and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The appellant was granted the benefit of reduced penalty based on their early payment of duty liability and interest, in line with a Supreme Court ruling.