2015 (9) TMI 346 - HC - Central Excise

Court upholds penalty cancellation, emphasizes proof of fraudulent intent.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty amount of 32,544/- by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the importance ... Imposition of penalty - Suppression of facts - Mens Rea - Held that:- entire amount of duty was paid on 29-5-2000 and 24-4-2001 prior to the issuance of show cause notice on 22-10-2002. In view of the admitted fact that the entire amount of ₹ 32,544/- was paid prior to the issuance of the penalty notice and, in the absence of any finding, that the assessee had suppressed the fact with the intent to avail the payment of duty having not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, we are of the opinion, that the show cause notice for imposition of penalty was unwarranted. - No error in the order of the Tribunal, which has cancelled the penalty - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Imposition of interest and penalty despite duty payment before show cause notice issuance.2. Availability of relief of interest and penalty under sub-section 11A(2B) when duty deposition is contested subsequently.Analysis:1. The High Court considered the issue of whether interest and penalty could be imposed when duty was paid before the issuance of a show cause notice, even in cases of fraud or suppression of facts. The court noted that the duty amount was paid in full before the penalty notice was issued. It was observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the assessee had intentionally suppressed facts to avoid duty payment. Consequently, the court held that the penalty notice was unwarranted due to the lack of proof of fraudulent intent, leading to the cancellation of the penalty amount.2. The court also examined the applicability of relief under sub-section 11A(2B) concerning interest and penalty. It was highlighted that the entire duty amount had been paid before the show cause notice, although contested later by the assessee. Despite the subsequent contestation, the court found no grounds to uphold the penalty imposition. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty amount was upheld by the High Court, indicating that the relief sought under sub-section 11A(2B) was justified in this case.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty amount of &8377; 32,544/- by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing fraudulent intent or suppression of facts before imposing penalties, especially when duty payments are made prior to the issuance of show cause notices.