9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1294 - AT - Central ExciseValidity of proceedings which were initiated prior to the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, in matters pertaining to the period prior to 1990 - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) VERSUS TAX RECOVERY OFFICER 2019 (1) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT has held that consequent upon the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990, any proceedings which were initiated under the repealed Act do not survive post 1990 in the absence of any savings clause. The Hon ble Apex Court also held that considering the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990, Section 6A of the General Clauses Act will not apply to these cases to continue any proceedings that may have been initiated prior to such repeal. Accordingly, the current proceedings which were initiated prior to the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, in matters pertaining to the period prior to 1990, no longer survive. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Challenging Order of Commissioner under Gold (Control) Act, 1968 post-repeal of the Act in 1990. Analysis: The case involved two appeals filed by the appellants challenging the Order of the Commissioner under the erstwhile Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellant's counsel referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila N. Rungta (D) Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, which held that proceedings initiated under the repealed Gold (Control) Act, 1968, do not survive post the repeal in 1990 without any savings clause. The Hon'ble Apex Court also clarified that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act would not apply to continue proceedings initiated before the repeal. Upon examining this judgment, the Tribunal concurred with the legal position. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the current proceedings initiated prior to the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, in matters concerning the period before 1990, no longer survive. Therefore, both appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside with any consequential reliefs. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court.
|
