2006 (3) TMI 621 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of compounded levy scheme for hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel.
2. Effect of amendments to Notification No. 50/97-C.E. on concessional rate of duty.
3. Imposition of duty liability and penalty due to changes in notifications.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of compounded levy scheme
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel, were initially covered under a compounded levy scheme introduced by the Central Government. However, a subsequent amendment changed the scheme's effective date, rendering the appellants ineligible for the concessional rate of duty. The department raised demands for duty at tariff rate for the period when the scheme was not in force. The appellate tribunal found that during August 1997, the compounded levy scheme was not applicable, making the appellants liable to pay duty at the tariff rate as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 2: Effect of amendments to Notification No. 50/97-C.E.
Notification No. 50/97-C.E. initially allowed a concessional rate of duty for goods manufactured before a specific date and cleared thereafter. However, an amendment to this notification restricted the benefit to goods manufactured before a revised date. This change led to the appellants being ineligible for the concessional rate of duty on goods cleared in August 1997, resulting in demands and penalties imposed by the department.

Issue 3: Imposition of duty liability and penalty
The adjudicating authorities confirmed duty demands on the appellants but restricted the liability to Rs. 300/- per M.T as per a subsequent notification. The tribunal acknowledged the appellants' bona fide belief in compliance with the original compounded levy scheme and the sudden change due to the amendment. Considering the circumstances, the tribunal found no intention of duty evasion and vacated the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, affirming the demand of duty at the reduced rate. The appellate Commissioner's decision was upheld with the modification of no penalty on the appellants.

In conclusion, one appeal was partly allowed, and another was wholly dismissed, with the tribunal emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances and intent of the parties involved in determining duty liability and penalties in cases of legislative changes affecting tax schemes.