TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Sixteen Lac Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only) on the party under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (3) I also impose a penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the said party under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (4) I also confirm the demand of Central Excise Duty (including Cesses) amounting Rs.8,21,940/- (Rupees eight Lac twenty-one thousand nine hundred forty only) as demanded vide Show Cause Notice dated 14.01.2011 under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith interest at the appropriate rate under Section 11 AB of the said Act; (5) I also impose a penalty of Rs.8,21,940/- (Rupees eight Lac twenty-one thousand nine hundred forty only) on the party under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; and (6) I also impose a penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the said party under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002." 2.1 Appellant having Central Excise Registration No.TEMPA2500XEMOO1 are a Government Opium and Alkaloid Factory. They are engaged in the manufacture of Narcotic Products namely Codeine Phosphate, Codeine Sulphate, Dionin, Medicinal Opium Powde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Duty Rs.7,98,000/- + Education Cess Rs.15,960/- + H&SC Edu Cess Rs.7.980/- total amounting to Rs.8.21,940/- (Rupees eight Lac twenty-one thousand nine hundred forty only) leviable on 228.000 kgs. of Nascopine and Papavarine manufactured & cleared by them should not be demanded and recovered along with due interest under the provisions of first provision of Section 11 A(1) and 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 respectively:. (ii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rules referred to above; and (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of Rule 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 ibid." 2.6 Both the said show cause notices were adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original No.MP (Dem.-74/2010 & 03/2011) 18 & 19 of 2012 dated 17.07.2012 by holding as follows:- "ORDER (1) I confirm the demand of Central Excise Duty Rs. 97,00,912/- + Education Cess Rs.1,94,019/-+H&SC Edu Cess Rs.60.334/- total amounting to Rs.99,55.315/- (Rupees Nintynine Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen only) as demanded vide Show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for doing the needful in terms of the observation made by the Tribunal in the earlier order. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly." 2.8 In the remand proceedings, matter has been adjudicated as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above. 2.9 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri Arvind Nath Agrawal learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Abhishek Mukharjee learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that- • They do not dispute the demand of duty or the demand for interest. In fact they are ready to deposit the both. The duty demanded has been deposited vide challan dated 17.10.2022 and will be depositing the interest within a period of two months. • They are only challenging the penalties imposed upon them, they being a unit of Government of India and there cannot be any deliberate/malafide intention attributable for imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules. They are seeking waiver of the penalties imposed. 3.3 Learned Authorized Representati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Rules 1944 as the applicant has not violated any Rules/provisions with intention to evade payment of duty. It is only a matter of difference of opinion regarding classification of goods between the applicant and by the department. Therefore penalty needs to be set aside and we do so 27. Further, since the Applicant are public-sector undertaking, the allegation of mis-statement, or suppression of fact or contravenes provisions of Rule with intent to evade the payment of duty cannot be alleged. It is unconceivable that the public sector undertaking would try to evade the payment of duty by resorting the wilful suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of law. We also observed that, Tribunal's in the case of Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur-2003 (161) ELT. 768 (Tri-Mumbai) and ONGC v. CCE, Vadodara 1995 (78) ELT. 117 (Tribunal) took a view that being a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India, they could not have evaded the duty and therefore a harsh penalty cannot be imposed" 4.7 Thus I observe that it has been constantly held that penalties should not have been imposed on a Government of India Undertaking or Governme....