2018 (8) TMI 394 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 25 of CER, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) of Rules, 2002 - Held that - Rule 25 of the Rules 2002 provides confiscation and imposition of penalty. Any person contravenes any of the provisions of Rule or Notification issued under this Rule with intent to evade payment of duty is liable to penalty - there is no justification for imposition of penalty under the said provision of Rule 25. In any event, there is contravention of Rules. Therefore, a general penalty of ₹ 5,000/- may be imposed under Rule 27 of the Rules, 2002. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 is set aside and a penalty of ₹ 5,000.00 is imposed under Rule 27 of the Rules, 2002 - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Filter Bags, were alleged to have discharged duty between August 2011 and March 2012 in contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Rules. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing demand of duty, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of ?2,55,000 under Rule 25 of the Rules. The appellant challenged this penalty through the appeal.

The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of Rourkela Construction Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, where it was held that the provisions of Rule 8(3A) have been the subject of litigation. The Tribunal noted that the issue was not free from doubt and had been the subject of litigation, leading to the Hon'ble Madras High Court declaring the provisions as void. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to impose a penalty on the appellant under Rule 25 and set aside the penalty, allowing the appeal to that extent.

Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides for confiscation and imposition of penalty for contravention of rules or notifications with the intent to evade payment of duty. The Tribunal, after considering case laws and the provisions of Rule 25, found no justification for the imposition of a penalty under this rule. As there was a contravention of rules, a general penalty of ?5,000 was imposed under Rule 27 of the Rules, 2002. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 and impose a penalty of ?5,000 under Rule 27. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.