Central excise penalty under Section 11AC fails without duty determination, but interest and Rule 173Q penalty survive.

Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could not be sustained because duty had been paid suo motu before any show cause notice and there was no prior determination of duty under Section 11A(2); the penalty was set aside. Interest under Section 11AB was nevertheless payable on wrongly availed credit reversed only after audit objection, and the interest demand was upheld. The separate penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was also sustained because the wrong availment of credit and non-payment of duty were treated as contraventions of the excise rules. The assessee succeeded only on the Section 11AC penalty, while interest and the Rule 173Q penalty were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable when the duty was paid suo motu before issuance of any notice and there was no determination of duty under Section 11A(2); (ii) Whether interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was payable on belated payment of wrongly availed credit; (iii) Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was liable to be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable when the duty was paid suo motu before issuance of any notice and there was no determination of duty under Section 11A(2).

Analysis: Penalty under Section 11AC is attracted only where duty has been determined under Section 11A(2) after issuance of notice under Section 11A(1). In the present matter, no show cause notice for recovery of duty was issued and no adjudication determining the short-paid duty under Section 11A(2) had taken place. Since the statutory pre-conditions for invoking Section 11AC were absent, the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was held to be unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was payable on belated payment of wrongly availed credit.

Analysis: The credit had been wrongly availed and was reversed only after audit objection. The liability to interest followed the wrongful availment and delayed payment. On that basis, the demand of interest was upheld.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 11AB was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The wrong availment of credit and non-payment of duty amounted to contravention of the Central Excise rules. On those facts, the nominal penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was found to be justified.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 173Q was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only on the levy of penalty under Section 11AC, while the demand of interest and the separate penalty under Rule 173Q were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed only when the duty liability has been lawfully determined under Section 11A after the prescribed notice and adjudication process; absent those conditions, the penalty cannot stand.

---