9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1478 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of Tribunal s order - omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 11-5-2001 and also the omission of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with effect from 1-3-2001 - Held that - provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inserted by Section 131 of the Finance Act, 2001, are applicable in respect of the obligations and liabilities incurred under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP before they were omitted by Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001, notwithstanding the omission of Section 3A with effect from 11-5-2001 by the Finance Act. - there is no challenge to the validity of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (Act No. 33 of 2009) the relief sought for in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal cannot be granted. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by the first respondent in Misc. Order No. 702/2007 regarding the effect of the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Analysis: The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing Non-Alloy Steel Ingots and Billets and Steel re-rolled products, challenged the order passed by the first respondent in Misc. Order No. 702/2007. The main issue revolved around the effect of the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with effect from 11-5-2001, and the omission of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with effect from 1-3-2001. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, and held that these provisions are applicable in respect of obligations and liabilities incurred under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP before their omission, despite the removal of Section 3A by the Finance Act. In a similar context, a previous order dated 5-12-2013 in C.M.A. No. 861 of 2007 addressed the validity of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (Act No. 33 of 2009). It was concluded that since there was no challenge to the validity of the said Act, the relief sought in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal could not be granted. Following this precedent, the court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the order passed by the first respondent in Misc. Order No. 702/2007. The decision was based on the ruling in C.M.A. No. 861 of 2007, dated 5-12-2013. As a result, the writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed accordingly.
|
