2009 (6) TMI 1027 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether there has been a violation of Section 2B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as contended by the assessee?
(ii) Whether the power delegated to the Chief Commissioner under Section 37A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to exercise the power of the Board under Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was correctly rejected by the Tribunal?

Issue 1: Violation of Section 2B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal below accepted the contentions of the assessee regarding the violation of Section 2B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This formed a substantial question of law in the appeal.

Issue 2: Delegation of Power to Chief Commissioner:
The Tribunal below rejected the revenue's contentions that the Central Government, under Section 37A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had delegated the power to the Chief Commissioner to exercise the power of the Board under Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This rejection raised another substantial question of law in the appeal.

The Court called for records and issued the usual notice. Dr. Chakraborty, a learned senior advocate, appeared for the respondent and accepted the notice through his junior Mr. A. Biswas. The appellant was directed to prepare and file the required number of informal paper books within two months. The parties were granted liberty to mention the appeal when ready for hearing.

After hearing the advocates for both parties and considering the facts of the case, the Court disposed of the application for stay by directing that any action taken in the meantime shall abide by the result of the appeal. The application for stay was thus disposed of, and no costs were awarded. All parties were instructed to act on a signed xerox copy of the order.