2007 (1) TMI 189 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal u/s 35(G) of Central Excise Act, 1944 based on Tribunal's order, substantial questions of law raised regarding change of option u/s Rule 96ZP(3), effect of subordinate officer's action on compounded levy scheme, finalization of provisional annual capacity, and validity of hearing notice.

In the present case, the revenue filed an appeal u/s 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial questions of law raised included whether the respondent could change their option u/s Rule 96ZP(3) within the same financial year, the impact of a subordinate officer's action on the compounded levy scheme, the correctness of the Tribunal's decision on finalization of provisional annual capacity, and the validity of a hearing notice issued by the Tribunal.

Regarding the first issue, it was undisputed that a show cause notice was issued under Rule 96ZP(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, raising demand for duty for a disputed period. The Tribunal held that once a show cause notice was issued, no second notice raising demand of duty for the same period could be issued, especially after a significant lapse of time. The Tribunal referred to Rule 96ZP(3) to support its view that a second show cause notice could not have been issued and adjudicated for confirmation of duty against the assessee, particularly when it was time-barred. The period in dispute was clearly defined, and the second show cause notice was deemed time-barred, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as it found that no substantial question of law would arise due to the second show cause notice being without jurisdiction and time-barred. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and time limitations in matters of excise duty demands and adjudication.