Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 567 - HC - Central ExciseLevy of penalty - effect of amendment - Whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is prospective; if so, whether the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for applying the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors., [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT ] to the facts of the present case? Held that:- The contention that in the present case as the notice period is 1-4-1994 to 16-1-1997, the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act cannot be invoked as the same would tantamount to retrospective effect of the provisions. In our considered opinion, it is not a correct interpretation. In respect of discovery of the fact on misrepresentation to evade the duty, it is the law which is prevalent on the date when such an act is discovered would be applicable. The contentions when examined in the context of the present fact situation wherein the period includes the period when section 11AC of the Act come into existence, deserves to be rejected. A default, which is a continuing default and not a default once for all, can be dealt with under the provision of new enactment, if it continues when the new enactment came into force, although it commenced when the old enactment was in force. The substantial question as to whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is prospective; if so, whether the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for applying the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors., to the facts of the present case, is answered in negative. Appeal dismissed.
|