Tribunal upholds penalty & interest denial under levy scheme, cites Central Excise Act.

The tribunal upheld the rejection of the waiver of penalty and interest under the compounded levy scheme, citing the mandatory provisions of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's non-appearance during scheduled hearings and the statutory guidelines resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The tribunal affirmed the imposition of penalty and interest as per the law, emphasizing the lack of discretion to reduce or waive them under the relevant statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of waiver of penalty and interest under compounded levy scheme.
2. Non-appearance of the appellant during multiple scheduled hearings.
3. Mandatory imposition of penalty and interest under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Appeal against rejection of waiver of penalty and interest under compounded levy scheme:
The appeal was directed against the rejection of the appellant's request for waiver of penalty and interest under the compounded levy scheme as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had not discharged the duty liability fixed under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Act, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice proposing a demand. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, which the appellant did not challenge and paid without contesting. Subsequently, a further order was passed demanding interest and an equal amount of penalty under Rule 96ZP(3). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's appeal for waiver, leading to the current appeal before the tribunal.

Issue 2: Non-appearance of the appellant during multiple scheduled hearings:
Despite multiple scheduled hearing dates, the appellant failed to appear, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The tribunal noted the repeated absence of the appellant and proceeded to decide the matter on its merits in the absence of representation.

Issue 3: Mandatory imposition of penalty and interest under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated that under the compounded levy scheme, there is a mandatory provision for interest and penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Act, with no discretion provided to reduce or waive them. Citing relevant judgments, it was argued that the imposition of penalty and interest is unavoidable under the statutory provisions. The tribunal, after considering the submissions and the record, found that the appellant had delayed payment under the compounded levy scheme, leading to the imposition of penalty and interest as per the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3). Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, it was concluded that the rules are mandatory, and there is no discretion available to reduce the penalty. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty and interest by the adjudicating authority, dismissing the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the rejection of the waiver of penalty and interest under the compounded levy scheme, considering the mandatory provisions of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's repeated non-appearance during hearings and the clear statutory guidelines led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the imposition of penalty and interest as per the law.

---