2011 (7) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal rules on penalty imposition under Central Excise Act

Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat Versus M/s. RK. Rayon Dyg. & Ptg. Mills

The appellate tribunal upheld the decision that once the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was imposed, no additional penalty under Rule 25 of the ... Clandestine removal - Penalty under Section 11AC or Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002- On an appeal filed by the respondents, learned Commissioner (Appeals) gave them option to pay penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty provided that the duty, interest and penalty are paid within 30 days from the receipt of his order and set-aside the penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 25 under Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the ground that once a penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is imposed, there need not any other penalty under Rule 25 - Appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Issues:1. Penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 imposed on respondent assessee.2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.3. Appeal against the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) regarding penalty.Analysis:1. The judgment dealt with the imposition of penalties on the respondent assessee for clandestine removal of processed man-made fabrics. The duty demand of Rs. 2,87,886/- was confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalties. The mandatory penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Act and an additional penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, were imposed. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) provided the option to pay a reduced penalty of 25% of the duty if paid within 30 days. The issue arose regarding the imposition of the penalty under Rule 25 separately from the penalty under Section 11AC.2. The appellate tribunal, after hearing the learned DR and noting the absence of the respondents, upheld the Commissioner's decision that once the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC has been imposed, there is no requirement for an additional penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The tribunal emphasized that no penalty should be imposed in lieu of confiscation. The tribunal referenced a previous case and a decision by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support this conclusion. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner's decision was rejected.3. The judgment highlighted the legal principle that once a penalty under a specific section of the Act is imposed, additional penalties under different rules should not be levied. The tribunal's decision was based on established legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant provisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and ensuring consistency in penalty imposition. Ultimately, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the penalty structure for the respondent assessee.This detailed analysis provides insights into the issues addressed in the judgment, the reasoning behind the decisions made by the appellate tribunal, and the legal principles guiding the imposition of penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944.