Section 11AC penalty barred after prior duty payment; scrap duty demands under job-work rules largely sustained, with one remand.

Duty paid before the show cause notice defeats the statutory basis for mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, and the penalty was therefore not leviable on that footing. In job-work arrangements, scrap generated at the job workers' premises must be cleared on duty or returned within the Rule 57F framework; where the assessee produced no convincing proof of lawful payment or return, the duty demand was sustained. A scrap demand concerning M/s. Tejaswi Engineering Components Pvt. Ltd. required fresh factual verification and was remanded, while the penalty under Rule 173Q was upheld for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether penalty under Section 11AC could be sustained when the entire duty had been paid before issuance of the show cause notice; (ii) whether the duty demand on scrap generated at the job workers' premises, other than the remanded item, was sustainable under Rule 57F; (iii) whether the demand relating to the scrap allegedly generated at M/s. Tejaswi Engineering Components Pvt. Ltd. required fresh examination; and (iv) whether the penalty under Rule 173Q was justified.

Issue (i): whether penalty under Section 11AC could be sustained when the entire duty had been paid before issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The duty covered by the relevant show cause notice had admittedly been paid prior to issuance of the notice. On that factual basis, the statutory precondition for imposing the mandatory penalty was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable, and the Revenue's appeal on this point failed.

Issue (ii): whether the duty demand on scrap generated at the job workers' premises, other than the remanded item, was sustainable under Rule 57F.

Analysis: The transaction was governed by Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Scrap generated at the job workers' premises was required either to be cleared by the job worker on payment of duty or returned within the prescribed framework to the principal manufacturer. For the scrap generated at M/s. Balaji Engineering Works, M/s. Turbo Energy Ltd. and Freins Engineering, and M/s. Pyrocraft Ltd., the assessee failed to produce convincing documentary proof that duty had been paid by the job workers or by its sister unit, and the plea of invisible scrap was not substantiated.

Conclusion: The duty demand on those quantities of scrap was sustained.

Issue (iii): whether the demand relating to the scrap allegedly generated at M/s. Tejaswi Engineering Components Pvt. Ltd. required fresh examination.

Analysis: The assessee claimed that the scrap was returned by the job worker and later cleared on payment of duty, but the record did not contain a clear finding on whether the disputed quantity had in fact been returned during the relevant period. The question required a careful factual verification of the evidence.

Conclusion: The matter relating to 37.014 MTs of scrap was remanded for fresh examination by the original authority.

Issue (iv): whether the penalty under Rule 173Q was justified.

Analysis: Non-observance of the prescribed procedure under Rule 57F was established, and the penalty imposed was modest in amount and commensurate with the breach found.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 173Q was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the deletion of Section 11AC penalty failed, most of the duty demand and the Rule 173Q penalty were upheld, and only the Tejaswi-related scrap demand was sent back for reconsideration on facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty on the goods is admittedly paid before issuance of the show cause notice, penalty under Section 11AC is not leviable; and in job-work cases, scrap generated at the job workers' premises must be accounted for in the manner prescribed by Rule 57F, failing which the duty demand may be sustained absent proof of lawful payment or return.

---