2004 (11) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT dismisses appeal for non-deposit under Rule 57CC, penalties not justified.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II Versus KUNDAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II Versus KUNDAN INDUSTRIES LTD. - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Confirmation of demands against the respondent for non-deposit of 8% under Rule 57CC.2. Setting aside of personal penalty imposed on the respondent.3. Interpretation of provisions of Rule 57CC and Section 11D of the Act.4. Applicability of penalties for failing to deposit amounts collected from buyers.The judgment pertains to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, where the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed demands against the respondent for not depositing 8% collected under Rule 57CC, while setting aside the personal penalty imposed. The revenue challenged the setting aside of the penalty. The matter was previously remanded to authorities with a direction that where amounts were shown as recovered under Rule 57CC, Section 11D would not apply. The respondent argued, citing precedent, that penalties were not warranted for failing to pay amounts collected under Rule 57CC. The Tribunal concurred, stating that such non-deposits were not covered by Section 11D. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of merit.The issues involved in the judgment include the confirmation of demands against the respondent for not depositing the 8% collected under Rule 57CC. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld these demands but set aside the personal penalty imposed on the respondent. The revenue contested the setting aside of the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the authorities, specifying that where amounts were shown as recovered under Rule 57CC, the provisions of Section 11D would not be triggered.The interpretation of the provisions of Rule 57CC and Section 11D of the Act is crucial in this case. The respondent argued, supported by legal precedent, that penalties were not justified for failing to pay the amounts collected under Rule 57CC. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, stating that the non-deposit of such amounts did not fall under the purview of Section 11D. This interpretation played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the lack of merit.The judgment also delves into the applicability of penalties for failing to deposit amounts collected from buyers under Rule 57CC. The Tribunal, in line with the respondent's argument and previous decisions, concluded that penalties were not warranted in such cases. This analysis highlights the Tribunal's stance on the imposition of penalties in situations where amounts collected under Rule 57CC were not deposited, emphasizing that such actions did not attract penalties under Section 11D.