9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 739 - HC - Central ExciseConcessional Rate of duty - notification No.50/97-CE dated 01.08.1997 - Imposition of penalty - Held that - It is seen that the compounded levy scheme was introduced from 01.08.1997 vide notification No.33/97-CE(NT), wherein it was stated that in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, the duty liability was determined on the basis of Annual Capacity of Production. The assessee cleared the goods under this compounded levy scheme. Subsequently, by Notification No.57 of 1997-CE dated 30th August, 1997, the relevant date, viz., 1st August, 1997, was changed to 1st September, 1997. Hence, the assessee became ineligible to claim concessional rate of duty as per the compounded levy scheme. However, by a Notification No.4/2000-CE(NT) dated 31.1.2000, where the concessional duty, as applicable under Notification No.50/1997 dated 01.8.1997, was made applicable for the period 01.08.1997 ending with 31.8.1997. - assessee itself had admitted that Notification No.4/2000-CE(NT) dated 31.1.2000 is applicable for the goods cleared during August 1997, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after taking note of various notifications, viz., Notification No.48/97, CE dated 01.08.1997, 50/97-CE dated 01.08.1997, 57/97-CE dated 30.08.1997, deleted the penalty also. Hence, the questions of law raised do not merit consideration, as the assessee had already accepted the benefit of Notification No.4/2000-CE(NT) dated 31.1.2000. - Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of subsequent notification affecting duty liability. 2. Requirement of a fresh show cause notice. 3. Scope of adjudicating authority's order compared to show cause notice. Analysis: 1. The case involves appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act against an order made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial questions of law framed include the impact of a subsequent notification (No.4/2000-CE-NT) on duty liability for the month of August 1997, the necessity of a fresh show cause notice due to the notification, and whether the Tribunal can overlook issues beyond the show cause notice proposal. 2. The dispute arises from the duty rate applicable for clearances made between 1st August 1997 and 31st August 1997. Initially, a notification set the duty rate at Rs. 300/- per Metric Tonne (MT) for goods cleared after 1st August 1997. However, a subsequent notification changed the relevant date to 1st September 1997, affecting the concessional duty eligibility for the appellant, leading to show cause notices. 3. The Original Authority and Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) differed in their decisions for the Salem and Gummidipundi units. The Salem Unit's duty liability was determined based on the total quantity manufactured in August 1997, leading to a duty recovery order without penalty. In contrast, the Gummidipundi unit was directed to pay duty at Rs. 300/- per MT, with a penalty imposed for non-payment. 4. Appeals were made to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and subsequently to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the compounded levy scheme was not in force in August 1997, making the appellant liable for duty at the tariff rate initially. However, Notification No.4/2000-CE(NT) restricted the duty demand to Rs. 300/- per MT for products manufactured in August 1997 under Section 3A, leading to the Tribunal upholding the duty recovery order while deleting the penalty due to the appellant's lack of intent to evade duty. 5. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the applicability of Notification No.4/2000-CE(NT) for goods cleared in August 1997, as admitted by the appellant. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order, confirming the duty recovery and penalty deletion based on the appellant's acceptance of the notification's benefit. 6. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, affirming the Tribunal's order and concluding the case without costs.
|
