2025 (11) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption under N.06/2002 (as amended by N.47/2002) covers pipes; s.11D demand unsustainable; duties and penalties set aside

M/s. Electrosteel Castings Limited, Versus Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Kolkata And (Vice-Versa) And Shri Rajesh Daga, C/o. M/s. Electrosteel Castings Limited Versus Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Kolkata

CESTAT KOL. allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue appeal, holding that exemption under N. No. 06/2002 (as amended by N. 47/2002) ... Incorrect availment of benefit of exemption as provided under N/N. 06/2002 - No water treatment plant - Pipes supplied to such projects were not used for the intended purpose - appellant has recovered an amount equal to 8% / 16% representing excise duty from the said customers by merging the same as part of basic price, without disputing that excise/commercial invoice did not reflect any excise duty element separately - levy of penalty on AGM of the appellant company (appellant no. 2) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- As per Condition No. 47A of Notification No. 06/2002-C.E. dated 01.03.2002, as amended, a certificate is required to be issued by the Collector/District Magistrate /Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the plant is located, which is to be produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the effect that such goods are cleared for the intended use. For better appreciation of the facts, one such certificate produced by the appellant - such certificate satisfies the Condition No. 47A of the said Notification i.e., the same has been issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dungarpur, in terms of N/N. 47/2002-C.E. dated 06.09.2002, for the pipes in question being used in Water Supply Scheme Reorganization of UWSS Sagwars (Gada Vejaniya) as sanctioned by the competent authority of the State Government. Thus, these pipes are meant for intended use, as per the said Notification. Thus, the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 06/2002-C.E. dated 01.03.2002, as amended vide Notification No. 47/2002-C.E. dated 06.09.2002, cannot be denied to the assessee-appellant. Demand of duty u/s 11D of the Act - HELD HAT:- The said issue has already been examined in the appellant's own case [2018 (11) TMI 907 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein this Tribunal observed that 'The reference to Section 11D as it stood at the relevant time also makes it clear that the Section will have no application to exempted goods. Section 11D was made applicable to goods which are wholly exempted or chargeable to the 'Nil' rate of duty only after its amendment w.e.f. 10.05.2008. This fact has also been circulated by CBEC at the time of amendment vide their instructions dated 29.02.2008.' Admittedly, in the case on hand, the invoices raised by the appellant-company do not indicate collection of any duty from their customers. Moreover, it is also a fact that the price has been increased by the appellant-assessee, which has been accepted by their customers. In such circumstances, the ratio of the decisions in the appellant’s own case for the subsequent period and M/s. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 695 - CESTAT CHENNAI] is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, following the same, the demand of duty of Rs.14,46,70,979/- under Section 11D of the Act is also not sustainable. As no demand of duty is sustainable against the assessee, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant-company as well as its AGM / DGM (Commercial), namely, Shri Rajesh Daga, the appellant no. 2 herein. Accordingly, the penalties imposed on the appellant-company and Shri Rajesh Daga are dropped. The appeals filed by the assessee-appellants / co-noticees are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether duty can be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that exemption under Notification No. 06/2002-C.E. (as amended) was incorrectly availed because (i) no water treatment plant (WTP) existed and/or (ii) pipes supplied were not used for the intended purpose, notwithstanding authentic certificates from the competent public authority satisfying Condition No. 47A. 2. Whether duty can be demanded under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act on the ground that amounts equivalent to 8%/16% were recovered from customers as representing excise duty by embedding such amounts in contract/basic price, where excise invoices did not separately show any duty element, and where the disputed period predates amendment of Section 11D by insertion of sub-section (1A). 3. Whether personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed on a key managerial person (AGM/DGM) when no demand of duty is sustainable and where mens rea/knowledge of confiscation or benefit is not established. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Demand under Section 11A for incorrect availing of exemption (WTP existence / intended use) Legal framework: Exemption Notification No. 06/2002-C.E. (as amended) grants exemption subject to Condition No. 47A which requires production of a certificate issued by the Collector/District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner stating that goods are cleared for the intended use specified (i.e., for water treatment plants and pipes for delivery of water to/from plant/storage). Section 11A permits recovery of duty where duty has not been levied or has been short-levied. Precedent treatment: Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions hold that where an exemption is made conditional upon a certificate issued by a specified public authority, taxing authorities cannot ordinarily go behind such certificate unless its authenticity is impeached; eligibility clauses are strictly construed but conditions may be interpreted liberally; prior Tribunal decisions in analogous fact patterns accepted certificates as satisfying the notification requirement. Interpretation and reasoning: The certificates produced satisfied Condition No. 47A (issued by District Collector / competent authority). The adjudicating authority did not show that certificates were fake or procured by fraud, nor summoned the issuing public authorities to challenge the factual basis. The term 'water treatment plant' in the notification and its Explanation is inclusive; treatment can involve various processes (desalination, chlorination, filtration, sedimentation) and need not be an elaborate mechanized installation. Functional and durability tests (as applied in other statutory contexts) support a broad interpretation of 'plant.' Given that the exemption is conditioned on the certificate and that the certificate was not repudiated, it was not open to the excise authority to deny exemption by re-interpreting project documents or schematic diagrams inconsistent with the certificate. Analogous judicial reasoning rejects a requirement of proving actual end-use where notification contemplates intended use evidenced by the certificate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an exemption notification conditions benefit on a certificate from specified public authority, and such certificate is authentic and unchallenged, revenue cannot deny exemption by independent re-examination of project implementation or by demanding proof of actual end-use; a broad, functional understanding of 'water treatment plant' is permissible. Obiter - Observations on technical processes and examples of treatment methods inform but do not constitute additional binding rules beyond certificate acceptance. Conclusion: Demand under Section 11A for the portion confirmed by the adjudicating authority is unsustainable; benefit of the exemption must be allowed where Condition No. 47A certificates are produced and not impeached. Issue 2 - Demand under Section 11D for amounts recovered from customers as representing duty Legal framework: Pre-amendment Section 11D penalized recovery from buyers of any amount in excess of duty assessed and determined and paid on excisable goods 'as representing duty of excise.' With effect from 10.05.2008 sub-section (1A) explicitly extended application to exempted or nil-rated goods; prior to amendment, Section 11D was understood to apply to duty-paid goods. Rule 6 CCR prescribed quantification of CENVAT foregone (historically 8%) where separate accounts not maintained; commercial arrangements sometimes recovered such amounts from customers. Precedent treatment: Tribunal decisions (including the appellant's own earlier orders and decisions in peer cases) have held that Section 11D, as it stood pre-10.05.2008, did not apply to exempt/nil-rated goods; where invoices/instruments required by Section 12A do not separately show any duty component, mere inclusion of duty-element in contract/price or ledger entries does not establish collection 'as representing duty.' Larger-Bench and Board instructions clarified that collection of fixed percentages pursuant to Rule 6 does not attract Section 11D where separate invoices do not evidence collection as duty; departmental circulars and panel decisions support non-application to exempted goods pre-amendment. Interpretation and reasoning: Invoices pertaining to contested clearances did not show any separate duty element; evidence did not establish that amounts collected were held out to buyers as excise duty. Contracts stating a cum-duty price or referencing prevailing duty rates cannot substitute for assessment documents required by Section 12A to establish collection 'as representing duty.' The disputed period predates the statutory extension to exempt goods; thus Section 11D could not be lawfully invoked against exempted clearances in that period. Equitable considerations: where amounts reflecting CENVAT foregone were negotiated into contract price and not itemized as duty in statutory invoices, and where Board/Tribunal precedents permit retrospective application of beneficial clarifications, recovery under Section 11D is not sustainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Pre-10.05.2008 Section 11D does not apply to exempt/nil-rated clearances; absence of an express duty entry in statutory assessment/invoice documents precludes finding that monies were collected 'as representing duty.' Obiter - Discussion on commercial negotiations, ledger practices and the propriety of retrospective application of Board instructions informs context but is ancillary to the core ratio. Conclusion: Demand under Section 11D is unsustainable for the disputed period; amounts embedded in contract price without separate invoiced duty cannot be recovered as duty under pre-amendment Section 11D for exempt clearances. Issue 3 - Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 on key managerial person Legal framework: Rule 26 permits personal penalty where a person knowingly deals with excisable goods liable for confiscation or participates in evasion; imposition requires culpability (knowledge, reason to believe, mens rea) and ordinarily presupposes a sustainable demand/contravention. Precedent treatment: Authorities hold that personal penalties cannot be imposed where the primary demand itself is unsustainable; penalties require proof of mens rea/knowledge and benefit, and cannot be levied on employees where no confiscation or duty liability is established or where the person did not derive monetary benefit or have requisite guilty knowledge. Interpretation and reasoning: Since the substantive demands under Sections 11A and 11D were held unsustainable, there is no underlying liability to support imposition of personal penalty. The adjudicating authority failed to establish that the co-noticee (AGM/DGM) had requisite knowledge, reason to believe liability existed, or derived monetary benefit. Rule 26 presupposes dealings with goods known to be liable for confiscation - an element absent here. Precedents reinforce that imposition of penalty on an individual in absence of proven mens rea or when company liability is unsustainable is improper. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Personal penalty under Rule 26 cannot be sustained where the demand on which such penalty depends is unsustainable and where mens rea/knowledge or benefit of the individual is not proved. Obiter - Remarks on policy considerations and proportionality of imposing penalties on managerial personnel without clear proof of culpability. Conclusion: Personal penalty on the listed key managerial person is not imposable; penalties confirmed against company and individual are to be dropped in light of the absence of sustainable duty demands and failure to establish culpability. Cross-references and final disposition 1. Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated: acceptance of valid Condition No. 47A certificates disposes of Section 11A demand; contemporaneously, absence of invoiced duty and the pre-amendment scope of Section 11D disposes of Section 11D demand. The unsustainability of these demands logically precludes imposition of penalties (Issue 3). 2. The Tribunal applies established principles that (a) certificates of specified public authorities satisfying notification conditions are ordinarily conclusive unless impeached, (b) pre-amendment Section 11D does not reach exempt/nil-rated clearances absent evidence of collection 'as representing duty' in assessment/invoice documents, and (c) personal penalties require proven mens rea and an underlying liability.