Pre-notice duty payment defeats surviving excise demand and related penalties when the balance claim is repetitive or already covered.

Where central excise duty had already been paid before issuance of the show cause notice, the Tribunal applied Section 11A(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and held that the surviving demand could not be sustained where the remaining amount was repetitive or already covered by admitted liability. It set aside the confirmed duty demands and held that, once the substantive demand failed, penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 could not stand on the same facts. The personal penalty on the director was also deleted with the underlying duty and penal liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmed central excise demands and the consequential penalty survived when the assessee had already made payment before issuance of the show cause notice. (ii) Whether the penalties imposed on the manufacturer and the director were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmed central excise demands and the consequential penalty survived when the assessee had already made payment before issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid Rs. 11 lakhs before the show cause notice and accepted the contention that the remaining confirmed amounts were either repetitive or already covered by the admitted liability that was not pressed. In view of the pre-show cause notice payment and the statutory position under Section 11A(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the surviving demand was not warranted.

Conclusion: The confirmed demands of Rs. 52,955, Rs. 62,481 and Rs. 64,187 were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the manufacturer and the director were sustainable.

Analysis: Once the surviving duty demand was set aside, the foundation for penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained on the facts accepted by the Tribunal. The personal penalty on the director also fell with the setting aside of the substantive demand and associated penal liability.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed on the manufacturer and the director were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal granted partial relief by deleting the remaining duty demand and all penalties, while the appeals were otherwise disposed of only to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty liability has been paid before issuance of the show cause notice and the remaining confirmed demand is found to be repetitive or already covered, the surviving duty demand and consequential penalties cannot be sustained.

---