Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 848 - CESTAT KOLKATAWhether the N/N. 12/2014-C.E. dated 11.07.2014 was clarificatory in nature and whether the same can be applied retrospectively for the period 17.03.2012 to 10.07.2014 in respect of the paper bidis manufactured by the appellants? Held that: - from the wording of the notification, no concessional rate was available to the appellants during the impugned period. The relevant entry no.2403 1929 was not there in the N/N. 12/2012-C.E. The appellants have built their case on the Budget Changes, 2012-2013 and on the letter of Joint Secretary, TRU. However, the N/N. 12/2012-C.E. does not reflect the tariff entry of the appellants product at Sl.No.48, which gives exemption to the products under tariff heading 2403 1990. It is also an admitted fact that no representation of any kind was made by the appellants to the Government during the intervening period and that N/N. 12/2014-C.E. does not expressly mention that it is clarificatory in nature. On being asked, the appellants have not been able to show anything to substantiate that N/N. 12/2014-C.E. was clarificatory in nature. Benefit of N/N. 12/2014-C.E. cannot be claimed retrospectively and is held to be prospective in nature. Hence, demand and the interest thereon are upheld. As for the penalty, the N/N. 12/2012-C.E. is clear and unambiguous and hence it cannot be said that there was a problem in interpreting the notification - it was a clear case of misuse of notification for which penalty has been rightly imposed in all the orders. Appeal dismissed - decided against asseessee.
|