1985 (3) TMI 65 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of action taken under Rule 10 after its omission.
2. Approval of classification lists and exercise of power under Rule 173B(5).
3. Timeliness of the show cause notice.
4. Exemption from additional duty under Notification No. 115, dated 1-3-1975.

Summary:

1. Validity of Action under Rule 10 after Omission:
The petitioners argued that the notice dated 1-8-1978 issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was invalid as Rule 10 was omitted with effect from 17-11-1980 without a saving clause. The court noted that the Assistant Collector took action based on this notice in June 1984, after Rule 10 was omitted. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. v. The Director of Enforcement, which held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to omissions and thus cannot save actions initiated under omitted rules. Consequently, the court concluded that no action could be taken based on the notice issued under the now-omitted Rule 10.

2. Approval of Classification Lists:
The petitioners contended that their classification lists claiming exemption were approved without modification, and thus, the power under Rule 10 could not be exercised, especially since powers under Rule 173B(5) were not used to modify the classification. The court did not delve into this issue in detail, as it found the first ground sufficient to decide the case.

3. Timeliness of the Show Cause Notice:
The petitioners argued that the show cause notice was not issued within six months from the relevant date, as required by Rule 10. The court did not address this issue in detail, given its decision on the first ground.

4. Exemption from Additional Duty:
The petitioners claimed that additional duty was exempt under Notification No. 115, dated 1-3-1975, because the basic duty was exempted. The court did not explore this argument, as it resolved the case based on the first issue.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, declaring the notice dated 1-8-1978 and the order dated 29-6-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector to be without authority of law and quashed them. The request for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected, as the matter did not involve any question of law of general importance.