2007 (10) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal reduces penalty for instant food manufacturer, emphasizes genuine errors.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the penalty imposed on a manufacturer of instant food ... Penalty - Quantum of - Clandestine removal not involved Issues:Department's appeal against penalty enhancement from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 3,75,000.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved the Department's challenge against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking to enhance the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 3,75,000. The case revolved around a manufacturer of instant food products, both exempted and dutiable variety, and the eligibility for small scale exemption for the year 2003-04 based on clearances from the previous financial year 2002-2003. The original authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 7,73,047 along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,75,000 under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000, citing a bona fide error of interpretation by the manufacturer.The Department, represented by the learned DR, sought to enhance the penalty back to Rs. 3,75,000 as imposed by the original authority. However, the Tribunal noted that the dispute was not related to clandestine removal but rather to the determination of the value of clearances from the previous year, considering both excisable and exempted goods manufactured by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the mistake in calculating the value of clearances did not indicate any deliberate intention of mis-declaration or suppression of facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty based on the manufacturer's misapprehension regarding the exemption criteria and the mitigating circumstances presented.The Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the penalty, as the reduction was based on the manufacturer's genuine misunderstanding and acceptance of duty liability. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal and disposed of the cross-objection filed by the respondent seeking to uphold the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and genuine errors in penalty imposition in excise duty cases.