2024 (8) TMI 1395 - AT - Central Excise

Time limitation for issuance of SCN - relevant date in terms of section 11A of the Central Excise Act - levy of penalty under the provision of section 11AC (1) (c) of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - There is no error in the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the relevant date in terms of section 11A of the Central Excise Act would the date on which the Supreme Court delivered the judgment i.e. 24.09.2014. If that be so, the show cause notice was issued within the normal period of limitation and there was no necessity at all of taking recourse to the extended period of limitation. Though the impugned order proceeds to impose penalty under the provision of section 11AC (1) (c) of the Central Excise Act but as it has been found that the notice was issued within the normal period of limitation, penalty can be imposed under section 11AC (1) of the Central Excise Act which would not exceed 10% of the duty or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is earlier. When the duty was levied pursuant to the directions issued by Supreme Court and the appellant was under an impression that the judgment is prospective in nature, it would be appropriate to reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. The order impugned dated 22.03.2018 is modified to the aforesaid extent only - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order confirming duty amount under Central Excise Act with penalty
- Applicability of additional levy on coal extracted as per Supreme Court order
- Confirmation of demand with penalty by Additional Commissioner
- Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Imposition of penalty under section 11AC (1) (c) of the Central Excise Act
- Issue of extended period of limitation for demand of differential duty
- Reduction of penalty in light of appellant's misunderstanding of judgment's nature

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal filed by M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. against the order confirming the duty amount under the Central Excise Act with penalty. The appeal was made following a show cause notice issued to pay central excise duty on an additional levy of Rs. 295/- per M.T. of coal extracted, as directed by the Supreme Court in a previous judgment related to coal block allottees. The appellant contested the demand with penalty, but the Additional Commissioner upheld it, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was subsequently dismissed on 22.03.2018.

The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the Supreme Court's judgment, which directed all coal block allottees to pay the additional levy. The judgment was deemed to have a retrospective effect from the date of coal extraction, impacting the cost of production for the entire period. The appellant's argument that the levy should only apply from the date of the Supreme Court judgment was rejected, emphasizing the automatic liability to pay the differential duty as per the judgment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the appellant legally bound to follow the judgment, justifying the invocation of the extended period for demand and penalty under section 11AC.

Despite the absence of the appellant during the proceedings, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the show cause notice was issued within the normal period of limitation, negating the need for the extended period. While the penalty was imposed under section 11AC (1) (c) of the Central Excise Act in the impugned order, the Tribunal reduced it to Rs. 10,000 considering the appellant's misunderstanding of the judgment's prospective nature. The order was modified accordingly, allowing the appeal only to the extent of penalty reduction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the retrospective application of the Supreme Court judgment on additional levy, the validity of the show cause notice within the normal limitation period, and the reduction of penalty due to the appellant's misconception regarding the judgment's effect.