Compounded levy does not exclude additional excise duty absent specific exemption; penalty may fail in a notification-interpretation dispute.

Payment under a compounded levy scheme for textiles did not, by itself, exempt the assessee from additional excise duty under the Additional Excise Duty (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, because the levy continued to apply in addition to the duty otherwise chargeable unless a specific exemption covered it. The demand on merits was therefore upheld. Where the dispute arose from interpretation of the notification and the scope of the levy, penalty was considered unwarranted and was set aside. The result was partial relief: tax liability remained, but the penal portion was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether additional excise duty on textiles and textile articles was payable when duty had been paid under the compounded levy scheme under Notification No. 33/2001-C.E.; (ii) whether penalty was sustainable where the dispute arose from interpretation of the notification.

Issue (i): whether additional excise duty on textiles and textile articles was payable when duty had been paid under the compounded levy scheme under Notification No. 33/2001-C.E.

Analysis: The notification governing the compounded levy scheme was issued under Rule 15 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 and provided that payment under the scheme would be in full discharge of liability for duty on production during the shift. However, Section 3 of the Additional Excise Duty (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 makes the additional levy applicable in addition to the excise duty otherwise chargeable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the relevant exemption notification. In the absence of a specific exemption from the additional levy, payment under the compounded levy scheme did not exclude liability to additional excise duty.

Conclusion: The additional excise duty was payable, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether penalty was sustainable where the dispute arose from interpretation of the notification.

Analysis: The dispute turned on interpretation of the notification and the scope of the levy, and the circumstances called for a lenient view on penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The demand on merits was upheld, but the penal part of the order was deleted, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made under a compounded levy notification does not by itself exempt the assessee from an additional statutory excise levy unless a specific exemption from that additional levy is ; penalty is not warranted where the dispute is one of notification interpretation.

---