2008 (4) TMI 599 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's grievance on failure to impose penalty based on duty deposit before show-cause notice issuance.

Analysis:
The Revenue contended that penalty should have been imposed as per Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944, citing various decisions. They argued that duty deposit doesn't absolve the Respondent from penalty. The Respondent, represented by counsel, explained the duty demand arose due to different costing methods, with no intention to evade revenue. They cited decisions supporting their stance. The Tribunal noted that the system of costing was crucial for penalty imposition. Both parties presented arguments on penalty imposition under Section 11A. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC, emphasizing that penalty is penal in nature, applicable in cases of deliberate evasion. The judgment discussed the implications of Explanation (1) to sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, clarifying the conditions for penalty imposition. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision regarding penalty imposition before the 2001 amendment, emphasizing the change in the law post-amendment.

The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority should reevaluate the penalty imposition issue, granting a fair opportunity to both parties. The Appeal of Revenue was allowed for further consideration in accordance with the law.