2006 (8) TMI 15 - SC - Central Excise

Central Excise - In the absence of independent finding by Tribunal on limitation - Question of relevant date within the meaning of pertinent provision not considered by Tribunal - Impugned order set aside - Case remanded for fresh decision

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal
- Points raised by the appellant's counsel
- Limitation of appeal before the Tribunal
- Penalty under Section 11AC of the Act

Analysis:

The Supreme Court addressed multiple issues in this judgment. The appeals were directed against final orders passed by the Tribunal, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the order-in-original. The appellant's counsel raised four key points: the appellant being a small scale industry, the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35B(2), limitation, and penalty. The Court confirmed the Tribunal's findings on the first two points but noted unsatisfactory examination by the Tribunal on the limitation and penalty aspects.

Regarding the limitation issue, the Court considered five show cause notices issued for different periods. The appellant conceded that the fifth notice was within the limitation period, but there was a discrepancy with the dates of service for the other notices. The Court found that the Tribunal did not independently assess the limitation aspect and remanded the case for a fresh determination in line with Section 11A(3)(B & C) of the Act.

On the penalty issue under Section 11AC of the Act, the Court emphasized that penalty could only be imposed under specific circumstances such as fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court highlighted the necessity for the show cause notice to specify the alleged violations clearly, which was lacking in this case. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order on limitation and penalty, directing a fresh consideration without admitting new evidence.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeals on the grounds of limitation and penalty, remanding the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and no new evidence would be entertained during the reconsideration of these issues.