2009 (5) TMI 678 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether penalty is liable to be imposed on the respondent under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a question of whether a penalty should be imposed on the respondent under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on the assessee after finding them liable under Rule 25. The appellate authority, however, held that the assessee was not liable to pay the penalty. The Revenue appealed against this finding. The Revenue argued that even if duty with interest had been paid prior to the show-cause notice, the assessee could still be penalized. The Revenue cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument. The respondent's counsel argued that the cited judgment was not relevant to the issue at hand, which was whether a penalty could be imposed under Rule 25. The Tribunal noted that the appellate order was ambiguous regarding the penalty issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had contradictory findings on whether the assessee was liable for penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal found the order unsustainable due to this ambiguity and remanded the case for reconsideration of the penalty question.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding the penalty issue due to ambiguity. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the penalty question and issue a fresh order after providing the party with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The appeal was allowed for the limited purpose of remand on the penalty issue.