Forced factory closure cannot be treated as breach of a special excise procedure; differential duty and penalty fail.

Forced closure of a factory due to statutory directions, with power and water disconnected and machinery dismantled, could not be treated as failure to avail the special procedure under Notification No. 17/2007-CE. CESTAT held that involuntary non-operation did not amount to opting out of the fixed duty scheme, and the notification could not override the substantive rule that excise duty arises only on manufacture or production. On that basis, the demand for differential duty was unsustainable. As the alleged breach of the notification procedure was not established, the basis for penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether forced closure of the factory and non-production of excisable goods during the relevant months amounted to failure to avail the special procedure under Notification No. 17/2007-CE so as to justify denial of the fixed duty scheme and confirmation of differential duty; (ii) Whether penalty was imposable on the assessees for the alleged breach of the notification procedure.

Issue (i): Whether forced closure of the factory and non-production of excisable goods during the relevant months amounted to failure to avail the special procedure under Notification No. 17/2007-CE so as to justify denial of the fixed duty scheme and confirmation of differential duty.

Analysis: The assessees had been granted permission to operate under the special procedure in the notification, and there was no finding that they opted out of the scheme. During the relevant period the factories were closed pursuant to directions of the State Pollution Control Board, power and water supply were disconnected, and machinery was dismantled. The non-operation was therefore involuntary and beyond the assessees' control. Such forced closure could not be equated with failure to comply with the procedure in the notification. The charging provision under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be overridden by the notification mechanism, and where no manufacture or production occurred, duty could not be fastened on the basis adopted by the adjudicating authority. The condonation power under the notification also had to be considered on the facts.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was not sustainable, and the assessees were entitled to remain within the special procedure for the period of forced closure.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was imposable on the assessees for the alleged breach of the notification procedure.

Analysis: Once the basis for treating the assessees as having failed to follow the special procedure was held to be unsustainable, the foundation for penalty also disappeared. The factual matrix showed cessation of work because of external statutory closure, not deliberate non-compliance. In those circumstances, the reasoning for invoking penal consequences under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not made out.

Conclusion: Penalty was not imposable.

Final Conclusion: The assessees succeeded on the duty demand, and the Revenue appeals against non-imposition of penalty also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Forced closure of a factory resulting in no manufacture or production cannot be treated as failure to avail a special excise procedure, and a notification-based mechanism cannot defeat the substantive charging provision that duty arises only on manufacture or production.

---