Tribunal Invalidates Penalties Under Rule 96ZQ, Emphasizes Civil Liability for Revenue Loss

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting Revenue's appeals against penalties imposed under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of Central Excise Rules. Relying on the High Court's ruling in a similar case and the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal found Rule 96ZQ to be ultra vires. It emphasized that penalties can be imposed without wilful concealment, serving as a civil liability for revenue loss. The judgment affirmed the impugned order's legality, stating that penalties under Rule 96ZQ were unsustainable due to the rule's invalidity.

---

---

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against penalties imposed under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The Revenue contended that penalties imposed on the respondent were set aside erroneously by the first appellate authority under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules. However, the issue is settled as the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Krishna Processors vs. Union of India declared Rule 96ZQ as ultra vires. The court highlighted that penalties can be imposed without wilful concealment and that penalties are a civil liability for loss of revenue. The court emphasized that Rule 96ZQ applies uniformly to specific categories like independent textile processors, ensuring no discrimination. The compensatory aspect of imposing interest for delayed payment does not negate penalty imposition. The court upheld the validity of Section 3A of the Act, emphasizing its unique scheme for duty collection based on annual production capacity.

The Tribunal noted similar judgments by the High Courts of Madras and Bombay, reinforcing the non-imposability of penalties under Rule 96ZQ. The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Angadpal Industrial Pvt. Ltd. further supported the contestation of Rule 96ZQ's vires. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeals against the penalties imposed. The judgment concluded that penalties under Rule 96ZQ were not sustainable due to the rule being declared ultra vires, thus affirming the legality of the impugned order.

---