Clandestine removal penalty under Rule 173Q upheld in principle, with pre-notice duty payment no bar and penalty reduced.

In a clandestine removal matter, a show cause notice was not invalid merely because it was issued by the Superintendent, since the case was not one of short-levy or non-levy arising from an initial assessment. Penalty was held to be examinable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 rather than Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and pre-notice payment of duty did not bar such penalty. The absence of mens rea was not treated as a prerequisite for penalty under Rule 173Q. The penalty was therefore sustained in principle, but reduced as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a show cause notice issued by the Superintendent was without authority in a case of clandestine removal; (ii) whether penalty could be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 instead of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iii) whether payment of duty before issuance of the show cause notice barred penalty and whether the penalty imposed was excessive.

Issue (i): whether a show cause notice issued by the Superintendent was without authority in a case of clandestine removal

Analysis: The dispute was treated as one of clandestine removal and not a case of short-levy or non-levy arising from an initial assessment. On that footing, the notice was not invalid merely because it was issued by the Superintendent.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be valid and the challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether penalty could be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 instead of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis: Section 11AC was treated as applicable to cases of short-levy or non-levy, whereas the present matter was one of clandestine removal. The penalty therefore fell to be examined under Rule 173Q.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 173Q was held to be permissible and the objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether payment of duty before issuance of the show cause notice barred penalty and whether the penalty imposed was excessive

Analysis: Pre-notice payment of duty was held not to bar penalty under Rule 173Q, and the absence of mens rea was not treated as a prerequisite for such penalty. However, having regard to the amount of duty involved, the penalty was considered excessive.

Conclusion: Penalty was sustained but reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was upheld in principle, but the monetary penalty was modified downward, leaving the rest of the impugned order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case of clandestine removal, a show cause notice is not invalid merely because it is issued by the Superintendent, and penalty under Rule 173Q is not barred by pre-notice payment of duty; the quantum of penalty may nevertheless be reduced if found excessive.

---