Natural justice limits central excise penalty action: prior notice, hearing, and consistency with the unpaid duty default remain essential.

Penalty under the Central Excise regime requires prior show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing; the commentary states that the rule relied on by Revenue did not dispense with these natural justice safeguards. Rule 96ZP(3) was treated as inapplicable where the compounded levy scheme had already been withdrawn when the duty default occurred. The penalty demand was also considered unsustainable to the extent it exceeded the quantified duty not paid, because the higher amount had no explained statutory basis on the stated facts. The discussion concludes that the impugned order was sustained and the assessee's relief remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty could be imposed and recovered without issuing a show cause notice to the assessee; (ii) whether Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules applied after withdrawal of the compounded levy scheme; (iii) whether the penalty could exceed the amount of duty not paid.

Issue (i): Whether penalty could be imposed and recovered without issuing a show cause notice to the assessee.

Analysis: The duty amount had been paid subsequently with interest, but no show cause notice had been issued before initiating action for penalty. The rule relied upon by the Revenue did not dispense with the requirement of notice, and the principle of natural justice required an opportunity of hearing before any penalty was imposed. The earlier Larger Bench ruling was read as dealing with limitation for recovery, not as authorising penalty without notice.

Conclusion: Penalty could not be imposed or recovered without a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules applied after withdrawal of the compounded levy scheme.

Analysis: The finding below was that the duty default occurred during a period when the compounded levy scheme had already been withdrawn. On that footing, the Tribunal held that the said rule was not applicable to the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Rule 96ZP(3) was held inapplicable.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty could exceed the amount of duty not paid.

Analysis: The duty not paid was only Rs. 3,90,150/-, whereas the penalty sought to be enforced was Rs. 11,10,374/-. The Revenue did not explain how such a higher penalty could arise on the stated facts.

Conclusion: The penalty demand was not sustainable to the extent it exceeded the unpaid duty amount.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed, leaving the assessee's relief intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under the Central Excise regime cannot be enforced without prior notice and hearing unless the statute expressly excludes those safeguards, and a penalty demand must remain consistent with the statutory basis and the quantified duty default.

---