Tribunal sets aside duty demand but upholds penalty for Central Excise Rules violation

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 25 but confirmed the penalty under Rule 27 for contravention of Central Excise Rules. The appellant was directed to pay the upheld penalty.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order upholding demand of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalties for destruction of goods without payment of duty.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing socks, faced proceedings for non-payment of Central Excise duty on 37,799 pairs of branded socks and 63,891 pairs of unbranded socks destroyed in a fire. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand, interest, and penalties, citing lack of intimation to the Department about the destruction. The appellant appealed, claiming lack of knowledge and later informing the authorities with supporting documents. The Respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The Tribunal acknowledged the fire incident supported by the Delhi Fire Service certificate and insurance claim. While the appellant belatedly informed the Department about the fire, the goods were not removed from the factory, leading to the view that excise duty cannot be imposed on destroyed goods. The penalty under Rule 25 was deemed unjustified as the goods were not removed. However, a penalty under Rule 27 for failure to inform authorities about the fire was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 25 but confirmed the penalty under Rule 27 for contravention of Central Excise Rules. The appellant was directed to pay the upheld penalty.

---