TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal (herein after "the Tribunal" for brevity), Chennai. 2.The appeal has been admitted, vide order dated 02.12.2008, on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1. Whether the second respondent is correct in imposing penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 without any finding on the reason and justification for imposition of penalty? 2. Whether the second respondent is correct in imposing penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 when none of the situations of Rule 25 is prevalent? 3. Whether the second respondent is correct in holding that the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- is payable under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 without considering the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o thousand], whichever is greater. 2.An order under sub-rule (1) shall be issued by the Central Excise Officer, following the principles of natural justice." 4.Heard Mrs.R.Charulatha, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.Srinivas, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 5.In order to attract penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules, the Department should have made out a case against the appellant that they have, (a) removed any excisable goods in contravention of the provisions of the Rules; (b)did not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by them, (c)engaged in manufacture, production or storage of excisable goods, without obtaining registration certificate; or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve indicated the duty amount in the column "duty payable" but the column under "duty paid" was left blank. We find that the entire case is basically of delayed payment under Rule 8 and the consequential demand by the department. We find that the show cause notice was issued on 20.01.2012. Before the issue of SCN itself, the appellant paid Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 20,00,000/- was proposed for appropriation in the SCN and the balance amount was paid with interest before issue of adjudication order. Therefore, we hold that there is no mensrea or intention to evade payment of duty so as to invoke penalty under Section 11AC. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is not sustainable and liable to be set aside." In the same pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005(190) ELT 433 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered as to whether there was justification for levy of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1974 on the assessee therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out that neither the show-cause notice nor the order of the Commissioner specified as to which particular Clause of Rule 173Q had been allegedly contravened by the assessee, as Rule 173Q contains six Clauses, the contents of which are not the same. 12.As pointed out earlier, in the instant case, the Tribunal has not recorded any finding as to which of the clauses under Rule 25 of the Rules were attracted. Therefore, the decision in the case of Amrit Foods also comes to t....