2011 (6) TMI 529 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal drops penalty under Section 11AC, finding no evasion intent.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, dropping the penalty imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found ... Penalty – suppression - appellant Company have filed declaration on 23rd October, 2000 to classify their product under Sub-Heading 2710.90 which was very well in the knowledge of the departmental officers. If the department was of the view that their product is to be classified under sub-Heading 3811.00, the investigation would have been started immediately on filing the classification list which they have failed to do so – Held that:- classification list was in the knowledge of the department in October, 2000, therefore allegation of suppression is not sustainable, hence, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. penalty is not imposable on the appellants Issues:Seeking waiver of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The case involved the appellants seeking waiver of penalty imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The facts of the case revolved around the misclassification of products by the appellants, which led to the evasion of Central Excise duty. The investigation was initiated based on intelligence received regarding the misclassification of 'petrol plus' and 'diesel plus' as lubricants instead of additives. A show-cause notice was issued, and penalties were imposed equal to the duty amount. The appellants, being a public sector undertaking, had obtained clearance to contest the penalty issue only. The appellants argued that they had filed their classification list, declaring the product under a specific chapter heading, and that the department was aware of this classification. They contended that paying duty did not imply admission of liability for penalty. The appellant's advocate cited precedents to support the argument that disputes of classification do not sustain allegations of fraud or intent to evade duty.The Revenue, represented by the SDR, argued that since the appellants admitted duty liability and paid duty along with interest, they were also liable for penalty. The Revenue highlighted that officers of the company had admitted to misdeclaration during the investigation, making them liable for penalty under Section 11AC. Both sides' submissions were considered, and the Tribunal analyzed the case in detail. The Tribunal noted that the investigation started much later than the filing of the classification list, indicating that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. The Tribunal also observed that the appellants had not claimed a refund and were only contesting the penalty imposition. Relying on case laws cited by the appellant's advocate, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not sustainable as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the classification list was known to the department, and hence, the penalty under Section 11AC was not imposable.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, dropping the penalty imposed on them. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.