Penalty under Section 11AC set aside as duty paid within three days before show cause notice issuance

CESTAT Chennai-AT allowed appeal against penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant failed to include amortized value of free moulding machines in finished goods valuation. Court held that since duty and interest were paid within three days of officers' visit and before show cause notice issuance, Section 11A(2) prohibited penalty imposition. No suppression with intent to evade tax was established, only ignorance of law. Duty and interest demand upheld but penalty set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The case involves M/s. CnF Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., manufacturers of Moulded Plastic Automobile components, who were supplied with moulds by M/s. Hanil Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arose due to the non-inclusion of the amortized value of moulding machines supplied free of cost by M/s. Hanil to the appellants.

2. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant argued that they were not deliberately evading duty payment and had promptly paid the differential duty and interest upon being informed. They cited a Madras High Court decision emphasizing the need for a factual finding to invoke penalty under Section 11AC.

3. Revenue's Position:
The Authorized Representative supported the Lower Adjudicating Authorities' findings, advocating for the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC due to the non-amortization of the cost of the free moulding machines.

4. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's timely payment of duty and interest, invoking Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, which prevents the issuance of a notice or imposition of penalties if duty is paid promptly and informed to the authorities.

5. Legal Precedent:
The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court case emphasizing that for penalties under Section 11AC, there must be allegations of fraud, collusion, or intentional evasion of duty, which were not present in this case.

6. Decision:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that while the appellant should have included the amortized cost of capital goods in the value of finished products, the penalty under Section 11AC was not justified. The earlier order imposing the penalty was set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of prompt duty payment and lack of intentional evasion in determining the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---