2014 (1) TMI 1814 - HC - Central Excise

Application for framing additional substantial questions of law - What is the effect of omission of Rules 96ZO and 96 ZP with effect from 01.03.2001 alongwith omission of Section 3A of the Act by the Finance Act,2001 w.e.f. 11.05.2001 on the pending proceedings out of which this appeal arises? - In the absence of any saving clause provided in the Finance Act, 2001 while omitting Section 3A of the Act and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP, whether it will have any effect on the pending proceedings and if so, in what manner? - misc. application is allowed and additional substantial questions of law are framed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 35 G(4) proviso of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for framing additional substantial questions of law.
2. Effect of omission of Rules 96ZO and 96 ZP along with Section 3A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2001 on pending proceedings.
3. Impact of the absence of a saving clause in the Finance Act, 2001 on pending proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an application under Section 35 G(4) proviso of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking to frame additional substantial questions of law for the appeal. The Court, after perusing the application and considering the controversy, decided to grant the appellant the opportunity to argue the appeal on the additional questions of law proposed and framed by the Court. This decision was made in addition to the questions already heard at the time of admitting the appeal on 12.5.2012.

2. The Court framed two additional substantial questions of law for consideration. The first question pertained to the effect of the omission of Rules 96ZO and 96 ZP, along with the omission of Section 3A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2001, on the pending proceedings related to the appeal. This issue raises concerns about the legal implications of the mentioned omissions on the ongoing case and the relevant legal framework.

3. The second question addressed the absence of any saving clause in the Finance Act, 2001 when omitting Section 3A of the Act and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. The query was whether this absence of a saving clause would have any impact on the pending proceedings and, if so, in what manner. This issue delves into the legislative intent behind the omission and its potential consequences on the legal proceedings in question.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the miscellaneous application, framed additional substantial questions of law, and disposed of the miscellaneous case. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing in due course, indicating that the Court was prepared to delve deeper into the legal complexities surrounding the issues raised by the appellant.