Tribunal modifies penalties in manufacturer's case for non-filing statutory returns, upholding some, setting aside others.

The Tribunal modified some penalties and set aside others in a case involving penalties imposed on a manufacturer for non-filing of statutory returns. Penalties under Rule 12(6) for non-filing of certain returns were upheld, while penalties for non-filing of other returns were set aside due to the absence of specific allegations and changes in relevant rules. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's regular compliance but found non-filing despite objections raised during the audit, justifying the imposition of penalties under certain provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Imposition of penalties under various provisions for non-filing of statutory returns.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of bicycles and electrically operated vehicles, faced penalties for not filing statutory returns during the audit period from August 2014 to March 2016. The show cause notice proposed penalties under different provisions for non-submission of returns like ER-4, ER-5, ER-6, and ER-7. The appellant contested the penalties, arguing that there was no allegation of suppression, concealment, or mis-declaration, making the penalties unjustifiable. The appellant also highlighted the absence of Rule 9A(3) at the time of the notice issuance, challenging the penalty of &8377; 95,000 under this rule. The appellant further contended that the notice issued after the deletion of Rule 9A(3) lacked sustainability. The appellant emphasized their regular compliance with filing returns and payment of duties without any intent to unlawfully benefit, thus, asserting that penalties were unwarranted.

On the contrary, the authorized representative argued that penalties were rightfully imposed as Rule 9A(3) was applicable during the relevant period. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and found that the appellant did not file returns despite objections raised during the audit, justifying the invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal acknowledged the high penalties imposed and reduced the penalty for non-filing of ER-4 return for 2013-14. However, penalties under Rule 12(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for non-filing of ER-4 and ER-7 returns for 2014-15 were upheld. Regarding penalties for non-filing of ER-5 and ER-6 returns, the Tribunal noted that Rule 9A(3) was omitted without a saving clause at the time of the notice issuance, leading to the setting aside of penalties amounting to &8377; 5,000 and &8377; 95,000, respectively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by modifying some penalties while setting aside others based on the absence of specific allegations and changes in relevant rules.

---