2010 (2) TMI 573 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal overturns duty demand and penalty, citing Rule 8 provisions.

The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposed by the lower authorities. The tribunal found ... Demand – goods cleared for home consumption and - Returned back in the very same month in which they were cleared - intimation regarding receipt of the goods in the same month was submitted to the authorities – goods cleared subsequently on payment of duty – Held that: - payment of duty of such goods would be revenue neutral, as, when duty paid goods received back into factory premises the appellant is eligible to take credit in terms of provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appeal is allowed Issues:Duty liability on goods cleared and returned in the same month under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Analysis:Issue 1: Duty liability on goods cleared and returned in the same month under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:The case involved goods cleared for home consumption without duty payment under Invoice Nos. 313 and 333, later returned to the factory premises in the same month. The appellant argued that since the goods were returned in the same month, duty liability did not arise as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand, emphasizing duty payment on removal under Rule 4. However, the appellate tribunal found that the duty liability should be discharged by the 5th of the succeeding month as per Rule 8. The tribunal noted that the goods were returned in the same month, making the duty payment revenue neutral. The tribunal highlighted that the demand of duty was misconceived since the goods returned were not subsequently cleared without duty payment, leading to the duty liability being unsustainable. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the demand of duty, along with any penalty and interest imposed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:The appellant contested the imposition of penalty under Rule 25, arguing that no violation of the Central Excise Rules occurred. The tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, found that since the duty liability itself was not established due to the goods being returned in the same month, the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 was unsustainable. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty along with the duty demand. The tribunal's decision rendered the imposition of penalty and consequential interest incorrect and unsustainable, providing relief to the appellant.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal, in the case under consideration, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposed by the lower authorities. The tribunal's analysis focused on the specific provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the circumstances surrounding the clearance and return of goods in the same month, ultimately determining the duty liability to be revenue neutral and unsustainable.