2019 (9) TMI 1215 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of Central Excise Duty - motor vehicle parts - benefit of reduced penalty - HELD THAT - Revenue contends that mandatory penalties were bound to be imposed as appellants had failed to produce evidence of such inclusion as required under rule 6 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent of including the option of reduced penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 subject to fulfilment of appurtenant conditions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 in adjudication order.
2. Duty liability for non-inclusion of the value of drawings in the assessable value.
3. Imposition of mandatory penalties for failure to produce evidence of inclusion.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant, a manufacturer of 'motor vehicle parts,' was subjected to duty liability under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for not including the value of drawings in the assessable value for the discharge of duty liability. The merit of the demand was not contested. However, the appellant's Learned Counsel argued that section 11AC of the Act had not been fully complied with in the adjudication order.

Issue 2: The Learned Authorised Representative contended that mandatory penalties were required to be imposed as the appellants had failed to produce evidence of the inclusion of drawings as mandated by rule 6 of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The appellant's compliance with the rules and regulations was a crucial aspect in determining the penalty and liability in this case.

Issue 3: The Tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Mr. C J Mathew, Member (Technical), and Hon’ble Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial), disposed of the appeals by a common order. The appeals were allowed to the limited extent of including the option of reduced penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provided the appurtenant conditions were fulfilled. This decision highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and the discretion available under the law for imposing penalties in excise matters.

This judgment underscores the significance of compliance with statutory provisions, especially in cases involving duty liability and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It clarifies the obligations of manufacturers in determining the assessable value for duty payment and the consequences of non-compliance with procedural requirements. The decision also demonstrates the Tribunal's approach to balancing enforcement with fairness by allowing the appeals to the extent of providing an opportunity for reduced penalties, subject to meeting specific conditions outlined in the law.