9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of issuance of SCN (21.4.06). So, Section 73(1A) is applicable - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/86464 & 86465/14 - A/92060-90261/17/SMB - Dated:- 23-10-2017 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.Ashok Singh, Advocate for appellant Shri.Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Raju 1. These appeals have been filed by M/s.Sapna Re-Rolling Industries and Shri Neelathil Raichel Chacko, partner of the main appellant. M/s.Sapna Re-Rolling Industries (SRI) are engaged in manufacture of Iron Steel Products, namely, MS Bars of various sizes falling under Chapter No.72 of the CETA, 1985. They had cleared 186.860 MTs of MS Bars during the period 03/02/2010 to 10/12/2010 without accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provision of law as it existed at the time of offence would be applicable or the provision of law as it existed at the time of show-cause notice. I find that the grounds of appeal do not give any arguments as to why the provisions as it existed at the time of offence should be applied and not the provisions as it existed at the time of show-cause notice. Prior to 08/04/2011, the Section 11A read as (1A) follows: 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.- (1) .................. (a) .................. (b) the person chargeable with the duty, may, before service of notice under clause (a), pay on the basis of (i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so accepted by such person within thirty days of the receipt of the notice. 4.1 In the instant case, the appellants have claimed that they have paid the duty along with interest and 25% of penalty within one month of receipt of show-cause notice. Thus, if the law as it existed prior to 08/04/2011 is applied, this proceedings against appellant would stand concluded. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows in this regard: So the decision before me is that whether a procedural provision of law should be applied as existing during the period of offence (i.e. February to December, 2010) or as existing on the date when the condition precedent for that procedure to apply was met. In the normal course, when the quantum of subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither for short-levy or non-levy, the recourse can be had to be provisions as prevailing at the time of initiation of proceedings and the period of limitation for issue of show cause notice in spite of the fact that short-levy or non-levy referred to the period when different period of limitation was available. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum reported in 2007 (6) S.T.R. 148 (Tribunal-Bang.) held that demand can be confirmed in accordance with provisions of law at the time of its issuance. In the present case, the new provisions of Section 73(1A) of the Act is in existence at the time of issuance of show cause notice. So, Section 73(1A) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
