2017 (11) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

Applicability of provisions of law - relevant time - the provision of law as it existed at the time of offence would be applicable or the provision of law as it existed at the time of show-cause notice? - Held that - The courses of action under Section 11A (1A) arises at the time of issue of show-cause notice and therefore, the law as applicable at the time of issue of show-cause notice should be made applicable - reliance placed in the case of ANEJA PROPERTY DEALER Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA 2008 (9) TMI 136 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that new provisions of Section 73(1A) is in existence at the time of issuance of SCN (21.4.06). So, Section 73(1A) is applicable - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of law at the time of offense versus at the time of show-cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by M/s. Sapna Re-Rolling Industries and a partner regarding the non-accounting and non-payment of Central Excise duty on MS Bars cleared during a specific period. The demand was confirmed with penalties imposed, leading to the appellants approaching the Tribunal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that they paid the duty, interest, and penalty after the offense, claiming the benefit of a specific provision of the Central Excise Act. They contended that the law changed post the offense date and sought application of the law as it existed during the offense period.

3. The Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order, highlighting the dates of the show-cause notice issuance and subsequent penalty and interest payments. The discrepancy regarding the date of receipt of the order was noted during the proceedings.

4. The central issue revolved around determining whether the law applicable at the time of the offense or at the time of the show-cause notice should govern the case. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act pre and post the law amendment date to ascertain the correct legal framework for the case.

4.1. The appellants claimed to have paid the duty, interest, and a portion of the penalty within the stipulated time after receiving the show-cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the procedural aspects and concluded that the law as it existed at the time of the notice issuance should apply, not the law during the offense period.

4.2. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's reasoning, emphasizing that the relevant date for applying the provisions of the Act was the date of the show-cause notice. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal supported the view that the law prevailing at the notice issuance governed the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, upholding the application of the law as it existed at the time of the show-cause notice issuance, thereby concluding the legal proceedings.