2009 (12) TMI 792 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty liability, interest, and penalty by the Additional Commissioner.
2. Appellants' challenge regarding hearing on representation and imposition of penalty.
3. Applicability of penalty provision under Rule 96ZO(3) retrospectively.
4. Admissibility of the appeal grounds raised by the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from the Additional Commissioner's order confirming duty liability, interest, and penalty totaling Rs. 17,51,656/- based on 8 show cause notices issued for the period from September 1997 to December 1998. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellants contested the proceedings, claiming they were not heard before the representation dated 19th March 1998 was disposed of, leading to ex-parte proceedings. They also argued against the imposition of penalty equal to the duty amount, citing retrospective enforcement issues. The Department countered these claims, highlighting the absence of ex-parte proceedings grievances post-communication and invoking relevant legal precedents to support their stance.

3. The crux of the matter revolved around the retrospective applicability of the penalty provision under Rule 96ZO(3) for the period before 1st May 1998. The appellants argued against the imposition of penalty pre-May 1998, emphasizing the non-retrospective nature of penal provisions. The Tribunal's decision in Hindustan Processors Ltd. was referenced to support this argument.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the challenge regarding ex-parte proceedings due to lack of specific grounds raised earlier. It also refuted the appellants' claim of opting under protest, emphasizing the voluntary nature of opting for a particular method under the law. Ultimately, the Tribunal quashed the penalty imposed before 1st May 1998, citing non-retrospective enforceability, but upheld the rest of the impugned order.