2020 (6) TMI 86 - AT - Central Excise

Quantum of penalty - benefit u/s 11AC of CEA - duty is deposited prior to show cause notice along with a part of the penalty - HELD THAT - While deciding the issue in de novo proceedings, penalties as per statute are required to be imposed. If the provisions of the statute required imposition of less penalty, where the duty and part of penalty has already been deposited, the same were required to be followed by the lower authorities. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to fix the penal liability in terms of provisions of Section 11AC - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition based on remand order from Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellate tribunal CESTAT New Delhi reviewed a case where the lower authorities had imposed penalties amounting to 100% of the total confirmed demand. The appellant argued that since they had deposited the duty prior to the show cause notice along with a part of the penalty, they should benefit from Section 11AC, which requires a penalty of only 15%. However, the lower authorities rejected this argument, stating that penalties should be imposed as per the statute, as directed by the Tribunal's remand order. The tribunal, upon examining the remand order, concluded that penalties should indeed be imposed in accordance with the statute. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to determine the penal liability as per the provisions of Section 11AC.

This judgment highlights the importance of following statutory provisions when imposing penalties, especially in cases where duty and part of the penalty have already been deposited. The tribunal emphasized that penalties should be determined based on the provisions of the statute, as directed in the remand order. By setting aside the lower authorities' decision and remanding the matter, the tribunal ensured that penalties are imposed in accordance with the law, specifically Section 11AC, which mandates a penalty of 15% in certain circumstances. This case serves as a reminder of the legal requirement to adhere to statutory guidelines when determining penalties in customs and excise matters, even when duty has been deposited prior to formal proceedings.