Penalty for alleged duty evasion needs statutory ingredients; interest on short-paid excise duty runs only from the provision's commencement.

Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q was held to depend on a show-cause notice and record disclosing suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty; in their absence, penal action was not sustainable. Interest under Section 11AB was held payable on short-paid duty because duty is due at clearance and delayed discharge attracts interest, and revenue neutrality did not defeat that liability. However, interest could apply only from 11 May 2001, when Section 11AB came into force, so the pre-commencement period was excluded and quantification was remitted for that limited period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was leviable in the absence of allegations of suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty; (ii) whether interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was payable, and if so, for what period.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was leviable in the absence of allegations of suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The show-cause notice did not contain any allegation of deliberate evasion, suppression of facts, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement. Penalty under Section 11AC is attracted only when the statutory ingredients are present, and the notice must disclose the foundation for such penal action. In the absence of such allegations, the basis for penalty was missing.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q was not leviable and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was payable, and if so, for what period.

Analysis: Duty is payable at the time of clearance, and where short payment is made, interest follows the delayed discharge of duty liability. The plea of revenue neutrality did not avail the assessee once short payment of duty was admitted. However, Section 11AB became effective only from 11 May 2001, so interest could not be demanded for any earlier period. Interest was therefore confined to the period covered by the notice after the statutory commencement date, with quantification left to the adjudicating authority after giving opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: Interest was payable only from 11 May 2001 to June 2001, and the matter was remanded for quantification for that limited period.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the penalties were set aside, while liability to interest was sustained for the post-11 May 2001 period and remitted for quantification.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed only when the show-cause notice and record disclose the statutory elements of suppression or intent to evade duty, whereas interest on short payment of duty is payable for the period when the statutory provision is in force, irrespective of revenue neutrality.

---