Tribunal reduces penalty for duty violation by company, upholds interest.

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand with interest but reduced the penalty to 25,000 on the appellant-company, M/s Nesco Ltd, for violating Central Excise Rule 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by clearing goods without duty payment. The appeal by Appellant No 2 was allowed, and the penalty on the employee of the appellant company was not sustained.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of Central Excise Rule 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 regarding clearance of goods without duty payment and credit reversal; Imposition of penalty and interest; Application of Revenue neutrality principle; Dispute on penalty imposition and interest demand.

Analysis:

1. The case involved M/s Nesco Ltd, which was found to have cleared semi-finished goods to their sister unit without discharging duty, violating Central Excise Rule 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The audit revealed this practice from 2005-06 to 2007-08, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand, Cenvat credit reversal, interest, and penalties.

2. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand, Cenvat credit, interest, and penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant contended that they had paid duty and reversed credit before the show cause notice, arguing for Revenue neutrality citing specific legal precedents.

3. The appellant's argument centered on Revenue neutrality, asserting that the sister unit had paid more duty than demanded from the appellant. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue opposed this, emphasizing the necessity of credit reversal on input clearance and the appellant's repeated violation of duty payment obligations.

4. The Tribunal found that while the duty demand was justified, the appellant's contention on penalty imposition had merit. Citing legal precedents and the appellant's submission of payment details, the Tribunal concluded that penalty under Section 11AC was not warranted, but a penalty for contravention of rules over three years was imposed.

5. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to uphold duty demand with interest, reduce the penalty to &8377;25,000 on the appellant-company, and allow the appeal filed by Appellant No 2. The penalty on the employee of the appellant company was not sustained, and the appeal by the appellant was disposed of accordingly.

---