2015 (10) TMI 1688 - AT - Central Excise

Duty Demand under Rule 96ZP - Assessee contends that adjudication proceedings was completed in 2006, long after omission of Section 3A read with Rule 96ZP in 2001 - Held that - adjudication order was passed in 2006, long after the omission of Section 3A and the Tribunal following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors vs. UOI - 2012 (11) TMI 954 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has taken a view that the said proceedings would not sustain. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Alwar Processors Pvt. Limited (2014 (12) TMI 156 - CESTAT NEW DELHI). We set-aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand under Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules 1944
2. Validity of adjudication proceedings post omission of Section 3A and Rule 96ZP
3. Applicability of the decision in the case of Alwar Processors Pvt. Limited
4. Interpretation of the Gujarat High Court judgment in Krishna Processors vs. UOI

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing re-rolled products of non-alloy steels under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Duty demand under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules 1944 was proposed through show cause notices issued from 1998 to 2000, leading to confirmation of duty, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority in 2001. Subsequent proceedings and appeals resulted in the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter for de-novo adjudication, which ultimately led to the impugned order of 2006 rejecting the appeal.

2. The main contention raised was the sustainability of the impugned orders post the omission of Section 3A and Rule 96ZP in 2001. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Alwar Processors Pvt. Limited, emphasizing that proceedings initiated prior to the omission without conclusion would lapse. Citing the Gujarat High Court judgment in Krishna Processors vs. UOI, the Tribunal concluded that the adjudication order passed in 2006, after the omission, could not be sustained, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal.

3. The Tribunal's analysis was influenced by the decision in the Alwar Processors Pvt. Limited case, where it was established that proceedings initiated before the omission of relevant sections without conclusion would automatically lapse. This precedent guided the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order in the present case, aligning with the principles established in prior judgments regarding the lapse of proceedings post-omission without a saving clause.

4. The interpretation of the Gujarat High Court judgment in Krishna Processors vs. UOI played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision-making process. By considering the implications of the omission of relevant sections without saving clauses, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, ultimately allowing the appellant's appeal based on the established legal principles and precedents.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, precedents, and interpretations that shaped the Tribunal's decision in this case, emphasizing the significance of procedural compliance and the impact of legislative omissions on adjudication proceedings.