2007 (10) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - Not. 9/2000 amended by subsequent not. 15/01 - Notification No. 15/2001 was issued limiting the concessional rate of duty - Notification itself clearly lays down that it has to be applied with retrospective effect so plea of prospective effect is rejected but plea for benefit of cum-duty price is justified so matter remanded to original authority to work out the duty after granting benefit penalty and interest are not justified as there is no suppression of facts

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 15/2001 with retrospective effect.
2. Eligibility for benefit of cum-duty price.
3. Imposition of penalty and interest without suppression of facts.
4. Applicability of Section 11AB for the relevant period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Notification No. 15/2001 with retrospective effect
The appellant challenged the demands confirmed under Order-in-Appeal, arguing that the Notification should have prospective effect. They relied on the judgment in UOI v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj, emphasizing the date of publication in the official gazette as the effective date. However, the Revenue contended that the Notification explicitly stated its retrospective effect. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's position, emphasizing the Notification's clear language and retrospective applicability. Consequently, the Tribunal negatived the appellant's plea based on the Notification's restrictions.

Issue 2: Eligibility for benefit of cum-duty price
The appellants claimed eligibility for cum-duty benefit, citing Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, affirmed by the Apex Court. The Revenue reiterated its stance. The Tribunal supported the appellant's claim, referencing relevant judgments. It set aside the penalty and interest, as there was no suppression of facts, aligning with the cited judgments. The Tribunal remanded the aspect of cum-duty relief to the Original Authority for further assessment.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty and interest without suppression of facts
The appellants contested the penalty and interest imposition, asserting no suppression of facts, fraud, or mistake, which were not alleged in the show cause notice. Citing judgments like Bharat Wagon & Engg. Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., the appellants argued against the penalty. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, setting aside the penalty and interest due to the absence of fact suppression, in line with the cited judgments.

Issue 4: Applicability of Section 11AB for the relevant period
The appellants argued that Section 11AB was not applicable for the relevant period, thus interest should not be imposed. They referred to Modern Insulators v. CCE, Jaipur II. The Revenue upheld the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal sided with the appellants, citing the absence of Section 11AB's applicability for the period in question. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the interest imposition, aligning with the appellants' argument and the cited case law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the retrospective applicability of the Notification, supported the appellants' claim for cum-duty benefit, set aside the penalty and interest due to no fact suppression, and ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the non-applicability of Section 11AB for the relevant period. The appeal was allowed, remanding the cum-duty relief aspect to the Original Authority for further assessment.