Incorrect assessable value can trigger excise penalty without evasion proof, but unauthorised rebate adjustment is impermissible.

A short payment arising from incorrect determination of assessable value may attract penalty for contravention of the Central Excise Rules even without proof of intent to evade duty, but the penalty must be confined to the clause actually attracted and reduced to the statutory minimum where warranted. Here, removal in breach of Rules 173C and 173F supported penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a), while the allegation of deliberate evasion was not established. An adjustment of the penalty against the sanctioned rebate was impermissible because no legal provision authorised such deduction. The penalty was retained only as a nominal amount and the rebate adjustment was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable for short-payment of duty resulting from incorrect determination of assessable value and, if so, to what extent; (ii) Whether the penalty could be deducted from the rebate amount sanctioned to the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable for short-payment of duty resulting from incorrect determination of assessable value and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The assessment made at the time of clearance was not a provisional assessment under Rule 9B, as neither prior permission for provisional assessment nor self-assessment with the proper officer's permission was obtained. The assessable value was incorrectly determined and the duty paid was short of the correct amount required under Rules 173C and 173F. The allegation of deliberate intent to evade duty could not be sustained under clause (d) because the show-cause notice and the original authority did not record such a finding. However, the contravention of Rules 173C and 173F attracted clause (a) of Rule 173Q(1), which covers removal in contravention of the Central Excise Rules even without mens rea. In the circumstances, the penalty required reduction to the statutory minimum.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) was upheld in principle but reduced to Rs.5,000/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty could be deducted from the rebate amount sanctioned to the assessee.

Analysis: The original authority adjusted the penalty against rebate even though the assessee still had time to appeal, and neither the appellate authority nor the order-in-original disclosed any legal provision authorising such deduction. The adjustment was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The deduction of penalty from the rebate amount was not justified and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The penalty was retained only as a nominal amount, and the adjustment of that penalty against the sanctioned rebate was set aside, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A short payment arising from incorrect assessable value may attract penalty for contravention of the Central Excise Rules even without proof of intent to evade duty, but the penal provision must be applied according to the actual clause attracted and the quantum must reflect the gravity of the offence; an unauthorised adjustment of penalty against rebate is impermissible.

---