Appellate Tribunal Upholds Penalty for Excise Law BreachThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the Respondent for breaching excise law procedures related to manufacturing restricted goods. Despite the Respondent's history and cooperative attitude, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with excise laws and rejected leniency in penalty imposition. The decision underscores the importance of upholding justice and regulatory compliance in excise matters, emphasizing the prevention of future breaches of law. Issues:
1. Consideration of penalty for breach of excise law.
2. Immunity from penalty for manufacturing restricted goods.
3. Leniency in penalty for cooperative attitude and discharge of duty liability.

Issue 1: Consideration of Penalty for Breach of Excise Law
The judgment addresses the issue of penalty for breaching excise law procedures. The Appellate Tribunal notes that the Respondent, an old assessee manufacturing restricted goods, failed to follow proper excise procedures for the goods in question. The Tribunal emphasizes that leniency in such cases would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal holds that the Respondent's repeated deviation from excise procedures warrants upholding the penalty imposed, reversing the first appellate order.

Issue 2: Immunity from Penalty for Manufacturing Restricted Goods
The Respondent argues that their cooperative attitude and history of manufacturing restricted goods for years should exempt them from penalties. However, the Tribunal rejects this argument, emphasizing that even for restricted items, compliance with excise laws is mandatory. The Tribunal holds that the Respondent's knowledge of excise procedures and past experience in manufacturing restricted goods do not justify leniency in penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Leniency in Penalty for Cooperative Attitude and Duty Discharge
The judgment deliberates on whether leniency is justified based on the Respondent's cooperative attitude and discharge of duty liability. Despite the Respondent's contentions, the Tribunal rules in favor of the Revenue, upholding the penalty and interest levied in the adjudication order. The Tribunal sets aside the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and supports the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to excise laws even for manufacturing restricted items.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of adhering to excise procedures, even for manufacturing restricted goods, and rejects leniency in penalty imposition based on an assessee's history or cooperative attitude. The decision underscores the need to prevent future breaches of law and upholds the penalty imposed, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice and regulatory compliance in excise matters. Penalty and interest COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-III Versus TRANSCEIVERS INDIA LIMITED
Central Excise
2007 (6) TMI 315 - CESTAT, KOLKATA - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 510 (Tri. - Kolkata)
CESTAT, KOLKATA - AT
Dated:- 2-6-2007
ESM-15/2007 - A-46/KOL/2007
Central Excise
Penalty and interest
Shri D.N. Panda, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri Arunavo Pal, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Id. DR submitted that the goods in question were sent without following proper excise procedure and although the goods in question are restricted items were not immune from the excise law and procedure. Therefore, the Respondent being an old assessee of the Department manufacturing such restricted items for some years past, has not at all dealt this particular transaction for the first time but repeatedly, should not have dared to deviate from following excise procedure. In such circumstances, any lenient consideration to exonerate from penalty shall frustrate justice and would be a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the first appellate order is liable to be reversed. 2. The Respondent appearing submitted that the goods in question was restricted item and they were manufacturing such goods for some years past and for their cooperative attitude and in view of discharge of duty liability, the Id. first appellate authority has leniently considered to exonerate from penalty. 3. Hearing both sides, the only question comes for consideration is whether a lenient consideration is warranted in a case where an assessee involved in manufacture of restricted goods for some years in past and supplying to government authorities, is immune from penalty for breach of law having thorough knowledge of excise procedure even followed for restricted item. The reasoning submitted by the Respondent does not appear to be sound and deviation in respect of restricted item should be seriously looked into so that on the plea of the restricted item there should not be any future recurrence of breach of law. Revenue's contention is fully acceptable and the penalty and interest levied in the order of adjudication is upheld allowing Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court.)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders