Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Jee Pumps Pvt Ltd vs C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (24 Jun 2022)

An assessee should be given sufficient opportunity to explain their case particularly for invocation of penal provision

MANU/CS/0145/2022

Excise

The Appellant have defaulted the regular payment of duty thereafter the department frozen the bank account of the Appellant and recovered the non paid duty, interest and penalty in terms of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenged the imposition of penalty only.

The department has not followed the principle of natural justice as no SCN was issued. It is submitted that, there is no malafide on the part of the Appellant, non-payment of duty at the relevant time is due to the Financial Crisis. The entire duty were declared in the invoice, ER-1 return therefore, when the case is of only delayed payment of Excise duty, no malafide is attributed to the Appellant. Further, submission is that without issuance of SCN, the recovery of the amount is in violation of principle of natural justice.

The only challenge in present appeal is imposition of penalty under Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Though the rule clearly prescribes the penalty however, the Revenue has not followed the principle of natural justice as they have not issued any SCN and no opportunity was given to the Appellant to defend or explain their case. It is a settled law that, even though there is no explicit provision for issuance of SCN, as per the principle of natural justice, an assessee should be given sufficient opportunity to explain their case particularly for invocation of penal provision.

In the present case admittedly neither SCN was issued to the Appellant nor was any opportunity given. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be set aside only on the ground of principle of natural justice. Hence, the penalty is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   LEVY   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved