1998 (6) TMI 331 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether central excise duty under Item No. 68 could be demanded for bagasse during a specific period despite a show cause notice being issued years later.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the demand for central excise duty on bagasse for a particular period, despite a substantial delay in issuing the show cause notice. The Revenue contended that post-amendment in Rules 9 and 49, duty could be demanded beyond the limitation period specified under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty amount in question was Rs. 11,790.60.

The appellants, engaged in manufacturing bagasse, were subject to excise duty from 1-3-1975 with the introduction of Item No. 68 in the Central Excise Tariff. However, an exemption was later issued on 30-4-1975, but it did not apply retroactively. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued on 26-9-1983, demanding duty for the period 1-3-1975 to 29-3-1975, which was beyond the limitation period.

The Revenue argued that the amendment in Rules 9 and 49 allowed for recovery of unpaid duties, emphasizing specific provisions in the amendment. On the contrary, the appellants relied on a Supreme Court decision highlighting the importance of harmonious construction with Section 11A of the Act, suggesting that the retrospective effect of the amendment should not override the limitation period specified.

The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice was issued long after the disputed period, which was deemed impermissible under the law. Citing the Supreme Court's decision, it was established that the amended provisions were not arbitrary and did not violate constitutional provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal, considering the matter covered by the Supreme Court's decision.

Additionally, the Revenue had filed cross objections, which were treated as comments on the grounds of appeal. Despite condoning the delay in filing these objections, the Tribunal found no merit in them and rejected the cross objections, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.