Penalty under Rule 25 set aside for wrongful exemption availment without malafide intention or suppression

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not imposable on appellant for wrongful availment of exemption notification. The Tribunal found no malafide intention or suppression of facts, noting that in appellant's previous case for identical issue, demand was set aside as time-barred due to no suppression. Since the issue was recurring and subsequent show cause notice covered normal period, extended limitation provisions under Rule 25 and Section 11AC could not be invoked. Penalty under Rule 25 was set aside while duty demand was maintained. Appeal allowed in part.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the wrongful availing of Exemption Notification, imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the sustainability of the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice.

Wrongful Availing of Exemption Notification:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing textile machinery, availed Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A Show Cause Notice alleged that the appellant wrongly availed Exemption Notification No. 6/2022-CE by manufacturing and clearing a machine not covered under the Notification. The demand was confirmed in the Order-in-Original, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was remanded by the Tribunal for hearing on merit, and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal challenging the order.

Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25:
The appellant did not contest the duty demand but challenged the penalty imposed under Rule 25. The appellant argued that there was no malafide intention to evade duty, as the issue pertained to the interpretation of the Notification. Referring to a previous case, the appellant contended that there was no suppression of fact, and hence, the penalty under Rule 25 was not sustainable. The Tribunal considered the submissions and held that the penalty under Rule 25 was not imposable due to the absence of malafide intention and suppression of fact.

Sustainability of Demand in Show Cause Notice:
The Tribunal examined whether the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice was sustainable. Referring to a previous order, the Tribunal noted that there was no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty by the appellant. As the demand was for a period prior to the normal period of one year, it was deemed time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of other cases cited and concluded that the penalty under Rule 25 was not applicable in the present case, setting it aside while maintaining the duty demand.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with exemption notifications, the criteria for imposing penalties under Rule 25, and the considerations for determining the sustainability of demands raised in Show Cause Notices.

---