2011 (6) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal reduces penalty to 25% for timely duty payment, citing lack of lower authority's penalty reduction option.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, reduced the penalty to 25% for the appellants as they had deposited the entire duty and interest before the show ... Waiver of pre-deposit - Duty deposited prior to the issuance of the show cause notice - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of Swathi Chemicals Industries Ltd. [2009 (7) TMI 1038 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] ,Exotic Associates Vs. CCE (2009 (11) TMI 293 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and CCE Vs. Harish Silk Mills [2010 (2) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that where no such option stands extended by the authorities below, the same can be extended by the higher appellate forum - As the appellants have now deposited the entire duty, interest and penalty of 25%, and in as much as no option was given by the lower authorities penalty is required to be reduced to 25%. Issues Involved:Reduction of penalty to 25% due to deposit of entire duty and interest before show cause notice.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved the issue of reducing the penalty to 25% due to the deposit of the entire duty and interest by the appellants before the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellants had already deposited the duty of Rs.2,98,163/- along with interest prior to the show cause notice. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the duty, interest, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants challenged the part of the order where they were not given the option to pay the entire dues along with 25% of the penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) refused to reduce the penalty to 25% as the interest had not been deposited by the appellants, invoking the Proviso to Section 114A.The Tribunal referred to previous judgments in similar cases to establish that the option to pay the penalty of 25% can be extended by the higher appellate forum if not given by the lower authorities. The appellants had now deposited the entire duty, interest, and 25% penalty. Since no option was provided by the lower authorities, the Tribunal held that the penalty should be reduced to 25%. The demand and interest were confirmed as there was no contest on those aspects. Consequently, the stay petition and appeal were disposed of in the manner described in the judgment.In conclusion, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty to 25% for the appellants as they had already deposited the entire duty and interest before the show cause notice. This decision was based on established precedents and the absence of an option to pay the reduced penalty by the lower authorities. The judgment provided clarity on the application of penalties in such cases and upheld the appellants' plea for penalty reduction.