2017 (1) TMI 1021 - HC - Central Excise

Whether assessee is not liable to pay duty, penalty and interest under the provisions of Rule 96ZQ 5 (i) and 96ZQ (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the light of the fact that the said Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ were omitted w.e.f 01.03.2001 and the said Section 3A was omitted w.e.f 11.05.2001, although the duty, penalty and interest are pertaining to the period prior to the dates of omission of the said Rules and the Section 3A of the Central Excise Act? Held that - the issue is concluded against the Revenue by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that When Section 6 speaks of the repeal of any enactment, it refers not merely to the enactment as a whole but also to any provision contained in any Act. Thus, it is clear that if a part of a statute is deleted, Section 6 would nonetheless apply. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the respondent-assessee not liable to pay duty, penalty, and interest under specific provisions of the Central Excise Rules and Act, despite the omission of relevant rules and sections?
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the respondent-assessee not liable to pay duty and penalty under certain provisions, considering the omission of rules and sections, when the omission of the relevant section is saved by the insertion of another section?

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in holding the assessee not liable to pay duty, penalty, and interest under the Central Excise Rules and Act, despite the omission of the relevant rules and section. The Court noted the reliance placed by the Tribunal on a previous decision of a Division Bench in the case of Krishna Processors. It was revealed that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, and subsequently, the issue was decided against the Revenue in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills as per the Supreme Court's decision.

2. The advocate for the Revenue acknowledged that following the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills, the issue was conclusively settled against the Revenue. The Court, considering the undisputed facts and the legal precedents, concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, answering the questions against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Tax Appeal accordingly, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee based on the settled legal position established by the Supreme Court's judgment.