Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, absolving duty payment lapse as revenue-neutral shift; penalties set aside.

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, absolving them of malafide intent in not paying duty on certain capital goods during the factory shift. The shift was deemed revenue-neutral, and the appellant's payment post-audit was considered in good faith to avoid disputes. The delayed penalty notice post-duty payment was found to violate the law, leading to the penalties being set aside in all three appeals under Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties on the appellant for not paying duty on certain capital goods during the shifting of their factory.
2. Whether the appellant acted with malafide intention to evade payment of duty.
3. Application of penal provisions under Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in medicine manufacturing, shifted their factory from Thane to Ambernath. While most capital goods were cleared with duty payment, a D.G. set not shifted attracted audit objection. The appellant paid duty with interest post-audit. The challenge was against the penalties imposed for non-payment of duty.
2. The appellant contended that the shift was revenue-neutral as Thane Unit's payments were credited to Ambernath Unit. Regarding the D.G. set, they believed no duty was due but paid to avoid disputes. The appellant argued against malafide intent for penalty imposition.
3. The Revenue argued malafide intent due to selective duty payment on capital goods. The Tribunal found the shift was revenue-neutral, absolving the appellant of malafide intent. The delayed penalty notice post-duty payment violated Section 11A (2B), indicating Revenue uncertainty. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, allowing all three appeals.

---