2016 (2) TMI 680 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty imposed under Rule 8(3A)for non-payment of interest - waiver of penalty involved under Rule 25 - Held that - The only lapse on the part of appellant is that they paid duty on monthly basis. In my view, this act of the appellant attracts only interest. It is not a case of evasion of duty. Therefore the penalty is not warranted. The appellant has not contested on interest demanded by the lower authority. Thus penalty was wrongly imposed on the appellant. The impugned order is set aside to the extent of imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-. The interest demanded by the lower authority is maintained.

Summary

Issues involved: Penalty under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for non-payment of interest on consignment basis.

Analysis:

1. Issue: Penalty under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002

The appeal challenged Order-in-Appeal upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the Appellant for non-payment of interest on consignment basis. Despite the absence of the Appellant, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on merit.

2. Decision on Penalty

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue argued that the Appellant failed to pay duty on consignment basis during the default period, justifying the penalty under Rule 8(3A). He referenced a Gujarat High Court judgment that only struck down a portion of the rule related to cenvat credit, not the provision for payment during the default period.

3. Tribunal's Analysis

The Tribunal noted that the appeal sought waiver of the penalty under Rule 25, emphasizing that the Appellant's lapse was in paying duty on a monthly basis, not evasion. Considering precedents like Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India and Goel Tempo Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unwarranted. The impugned order was set aside regarding the penalty but maintained the interest demanded by the lower authority.

4. Final Decision

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty while upholding the interest payment. The judgment highlighted the distinction between penalty and interest, emphasizing that the Appellant's actions did not warrant a penalty under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's reasoning behind setting aside the penalty while maintaining the interest payment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved and the decision rendered.