2007 (6) TMI 315 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of penalty for breach of excise law.
2. Immunity from penalty for manufacturing restricted goods.
3. Leniency in penalty for cooperative attitude and discharge of duty liability.

Issue 1: Consideration of Penalty for Breach of Excise Law
The judgment addresses the issue of penalty for breaching excise law procedures. The Appellate Tribunal notes that the Respondent, an old assessee manufacturing restricted goods, failed to follow proper excise procedures for the goods in question. The Tribunal emphasizes that leniency in such cases would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal holds that the Respondent's repeated deviation from excise procedures warrants upholding the penalty imposed, reversing the first appellate order.

Issue 2: Immunity from Penalty for Manufacturing Restricted Goods
The Respondent argues that their cooperative attitude and history of manufacturing restricted goods for years should exempt them from penalties. However, the Tribunal rejects this argument, emphasizing that even for restricted items, compliance with excise laws is mandatory. The Tribunal holds that the Respondent's knowledge of excise procedures and past experience in manufacturing restricted goods do not justify leniency in penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Leniency in Penalty for Cooperative Attitude and Duty Discharge
The judgment deliberates on whether leniency is justified based on the Respondent's cooperative attitude and discharge of duty liability. Despite the Respondent's contentions, the Tribunal rules in favor of the Revenue, upholding the penalty and interest levied in the adjudication order. The Tribunal sets aside the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and supports the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to excise laws even for manufacturing restricted items.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of adhering to excise procedures, even for manufacturing restricted goods, and rejects leniency in penalty imposition based on an assessee's history or cooperative attitude. The decision underscores the need to prevent future breaches of law and upholds the penalty imposed, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice and regulatory compliance in excise matters.