Appeal against Penalty Reduction for Ayurvedic Cough Syrup Manufacturers The appeal was against the reduction of penalty by Commissioner (A) from Rs. 6,75,535 to Rs. 1,20,000 for small scale manufacturers of ayurvedic cough ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal against Penalty Reduction for Ayurvedic Cough Syrup Manufacturers
The appeal was against the reduction of penalty by Commissioner (A) from Rs. 6,75,535 to Rs. 1,20,000 for small scale manufacturers of ayurvedic cough syrup selling products without paying Central Excise duty. The appellant contested the extended limitation period and suppression of facts, arguing a bona fide reason for non-registration and non-payment of duty. The Judicial Member upheld the penalty reduction to Rs. 1,20,000, dismissing the appeal on 26/05/2017.
Issues: Reduction of penalty by Commissioner (A) from Rs. 6,75,535 to Rs. 1,20,000 only.
Analysis: The appeal was against an order reducing the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (A) from Rs. 6,75,535 to Rs. 1,20,000. The case involved small scale manufacturers of ayurvedic cough syrup selling products without paying Central Excise duty. The appellants remitted duty exceeding the exemption limit without registration or following procedures. The Joint Commissioner confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant appealed, leading to a remand by the Commissioner (A) for re-quantification of duty demand. The appellant contested the extended limitation period and suppression of facts. The Commissioner (A) reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,20,000, prompting the present appeal.
The appellant argued a bona fide reason for non-registration and non-payment of duty, challenging the extended limitation period under Section 11A. It was contended that penalty imposition under Section 11AC alleging suppression was unjustified due to the absence of misrepresentation and the belief that the product was not excisable. Conversely, the AR defended the penalty, alleging fact suppression and justifying the reduced penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 by the Commissioner (A).
After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Judicial Member found no fault in the reduced penalty order. The Judicial Member upheld the penalty reduction from Rs. 6,75,535 to Rs. 1,20,000, dismissing the appeal due to lack of merit. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 26/05/2017.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.