2007 (10) TMI 537 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Modification of order regarding demand, interest under Section 11AB, and penalty under Section 11AC.

Demand Modification Issue:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, heard a modification petition seeking to alter its order dated 10-1-07. Despite the applicant's absence, the tribunal considered the grounds for modification. The modification application argued that the demand related to a specific period, and interest under Section 11AB should only apply from 29-9-1996. However, the tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already addressed the interest liability issue. The Commissioner's order clarified that interest under Section 11AB is chargeable only for clearances after 29-9-1996. As there was no dispute on this issue before the Tribunal, the ground for modification regarding the interest start date was deemed baseless.

Interest under Section 11AB Issue:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled on the liability for interest under Section 11AB, citing a CBEC circular that clarified the application of Section 11AB from 29-9-1996 onwards. This decision favored the assessee. The tribunal emphasized that the interest under Section 11AB was only chargeable for clearances made after 29-9-1996, as per the Commissioner's order. Consequently, the modification claim that interest should apply from 29-9-1996 lacked a valid basis.

Penalty under Section 11AC Issue:
The modification application also raised concerns about imposing penalties under Section 11AC solely from 29-9-1996. The tribunal noted that penal provisions existed before this date and that the show cause notice invoked penalties under both Section 11AC and 173Q. The upper limit for penalties under Section 173Q was three times the value of the goods involved. Since the duty confirmations encompassed clearances from both before and after 29-9-1996, the tribunal rejected the modification request related to the penalty applicability date.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, dismissed the modification application, as the grounds presented lacked merit based on existing legal interpretations and precedents. The tribunal reaffirmed the Commissioner's ruling on interest under Section 11AB and penalties under Sections 11AC and 173Q, emphasizing that the modifications sought were not supported by the legal framework and factual circumstances of the case.