2017 (6) TMI 1023 - AT - Central Excise

Closure of proceedings - application of provisions of Section 11A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 - Held that - as the appellant did not make specific plea regarding the said legal provision no finding was recorded on this by the original authority. Considering the above admitted facts, we find it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority to examine the legal provisions as inserted in 2006 in Section 11A - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Central Excise duty demand and penalties on two appellants/assessees.
2. Application of Section 11A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Verification of facts and applicability of legal provisions.
4. Imposition of redemption fine by the Original Authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a case involving the confirmation of Central Excise duty demands on two appellants engaged in the manufacture of Gutka. The Commissioner confirmed a total demand of &8377;59,77,881 on one appellant and &8377;2,36,621 on the other. Penalties were imposed on both appellants, and confiscation of goods was ordered along with the option of redemption upon payment of fines. The penalties were imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. The main appellant submitted that they had paid a substantial amount before the issuance of the impugned order and were not contesting the case on merit. They sought the application of Section 11A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006. The appellant did not raise this claim before the original authority, leading to a discussion on the applicability of this legal provision.

3. The appellate tribunal noted that the appellant did not specifically plead the application of Section 11A(1A) before the original authority. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh examination of the legal provisions inserted in 2006. The original authority was directed to verify the payments made and determine the applicability of the provision for deemed closure of proceedings to the main appellant and other co-noticees.

4. Additionally, the Revenue appealed against the imposition of a lesser redemption fine by the Original Authority. However, due to the setting aside of the order and remand back to the original authority, the Revenue's appeal was also disposed of accordingly. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 23/06/2017.