HC sets aside penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) Central Excise Rules 2002 requiring mens rea for Section 11AC invocation

The HC allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged clandestine removal. The court held that mens rea is essential for invoking Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and penalty provisions. Since all goods were properly accounted for with invoices on record and no intention to evade duty was proved by authorities, the penalty was impermissible. The court emphasized that Rule 25 cannot be invoked independently without satisfying Section 11AC requirements, as it operates subject to Section 11AC provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed without invoking provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the appellant had the intention to evade duty.

Summary:

Issue 1: Penalty under Rule 25 without invoking Section 11AC

The High Court examined whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed without invoking provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where 'mens rea' is a necessary ingredient. The Court referenced several judgments, including *Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Pepsi Foods Limited* and *State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.*, to conclude that 'mens rea' is essential for invoking Section 11AC. The Court clarified that Rule 25 is not independent and must be read subject to Section 11AC, which requires proof of intent to evade duty.

Issue 2: Intention to Evade Duty

The Court scrutinized the facts and evidence, noting that the appellant produced adequate records and invoices to reconcile the stock. The Commissioner (Appeals) had found that the raw material and finished goods were accounted for, and there was no evidence of intent to evade duty. The Tribunal's order ignored these documents. The Court reiterated that intention to evade duty, as required under Section 11AC, was not established by the authorities.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Tribunal's order dated 01.09.2010. It held that Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be invoked independently of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which necessitates proving 'mens rea'. The Court found no intention to evade duty on the part of the appellant, thus invalidating the penalty imposed.

---