2019 (5) TMI 142 - HC - Central Excise

Interpretation of statute - Whether the proceeding relating to breaches committed under the erstwhile Modvat Credit Rules could be continued/initiated after its withdrawal and substitution by new Rules? HELD THAT - In view of section 38A of the Act (inserted in 2001 with retrospective effect from 1994) the proceedings relating to breaches committed under the erstwhile Rules would be saved and not abort. The substantial question has to be answered in the negative i.e in favour of the Revenue - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal challenging CESTAT order under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944
- Whether proceedings initiated under old rules can continue after substitution with new rules

Analysis:
1. The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on a substantial question of law. The Tribunal had allowed the respondent's appeal by relying on a previous decision in the case of M/s. Sunrise Structural and Engineering Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Nagpur. The key legal issue was whether proceedings under old Modvat Credit Rules could continue after being substituted by new rules. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee in the Sunrise Structural case, leading to the current appeal.

2. The Revenue had previously appealed the Sunrise Structural case but the matter was rendered academic by the High Court. However, the High Court had dealt with a similar issue in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Milton Polyplas (I) Pvt. Ltd. In the Milton Polyplas case, the High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal by relying on Supreme Court decisions in Fibre Boards Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT and Shree Bhagawati Steel Rolling Mills vs. CCE. The High Court held that proceedings under old rules could continue based on Section 38A of the Act, inserted with retrospective effect from 1994, thereby ruling in favor of the Revenue.

3. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal in the current case, following the precedent set in the Milton Polyplas case. The substantial question of law was answered in the negative, favoring the Revenue. The decision highlighted the importance of Section 38A of the Act in saving proceedings related to breaches committed under old rules. Thus, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, concluding the legal dispute.