Tribunal reduces company penalty, clears director due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty on the company to Rs. 15,000 and set aside the penalty on the Director due to lack of evidence of intentional violations. The judgment emphasized the acknowledgment of duty liability, the dispute over penalties, and the considerations leading to the reduction and setting aside of penalties based on the circumstances and legal provisions.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and penalty on the Director.

Dispensation of Pre-deposit of Duty and Penalties: The Advocate for the appellants acknowledged the engraving charges as includible in the manufacture of excisable goods, agreeing on the duty liability. However, he argued against the imposition of a 100% penalty u/s 11AC for the period 1991 to 1995, citing lack of intention to evade duty. The appeals were taken up for disposal without pre-deposit, focusing on the penalty issue.

Engraving Charges and Penalty: The Advocate admitted that engraving charges were collected separately without informing the department, claiming industry-wide practice and lack of awareness about their includibility. The Tribunal noted the undisputed collection of these charges and upheld the duty demand. Considering the period predating the introduction of Section 11AC, the penalty on the company was reduced to Rs. 15,000, and the penalty on the Director was set aside due to lack of evidence of intentional violations.

This judgment highlights the acknowledgment of duty liability, the dispute over penalties, and the considerations leading to the reduction and setting aside of penalties based on the circumstances and legal provisions.

---