Prior payment of excise duty bars penalty and interest; proper signing and locus standi remain essential for maintainable appeals.

Where central excise duty was paid before issuance of the show cause notice, penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were treated as not surviving, and both were deleted. The Tribunal also treated proper signing of the appeal memorandum and verification by the appellant or an authorised signatory as essential to maintainability, so the Director's appeal failed on that ground. A company had no locus standi to challenge confiscation of vehicles owned by third parties merely because its goods were transported in them, so the confiscation challenge was not maintainable and the confiscation was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were leviable when the duty was paid before issuance of the show cause notice; (ii) whether the Director's appeal was maintainable when the appeal memorandum and verification were not signed by him or by an authorised signatory; (iii) whether the company had locus standi to challenge confiscation of vehicles belonging to third parties.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were leviable when the duty was paid before issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The duty demand was admittedly discharged before the show cause notice was issued. On that basis, the statutory consequences of penalty and interest were held not to survive. The reasoning also applied the Tribunal's earlier view that the nature of removal, including alleged clandestine removal, did not alter the effect of prior payment of duty for this purpose.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were not payable, and they were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Director's appeal was maintainable when the appeal memorandum and verification were not signed by him or by an authorised signatory.

Analysis: The appeal was dismissed below on the ground that the appellant himself had not signed the memorandum or verification, and the person who signed was not shown to be an authorised signatory. The requirement that an appeal must be signed by the appellant was treated as essential to maintainability.

Conclusion: The Director's appeal was not maintainable and the rejection of that appeal was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the company had locus standi to challenge confiscation of vehicles belonging to third parties.

Analysis: The vehicles were owned by persons who had not appealed. Mere release of the vehicles to the company on execution of bond did not confer ownership or an independent right to challenge confiscation. The company, whose goods were carried in those vehicles, therefore lacked standing to contest the confiscation.

Conclusion: The company had no locus standi to appeal against confiscation, and the confiscation of the vehicles was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand remained confirmed, the penal and interest demands were deleted, the Director's appeal failed on maintainability, and confiscation of the vehicles was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid before issuance of the show cause notice, penalty and interest under the relevant central excise provisions are not attracted; an appeal must be properly signed by the appellant or an authorised signatory to be maintainable; and a person without ownership or legal standing cannot challenge confiscation of another's vehicle merely because goods belonging to that person were transported in it.

---