9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of Notification No. 155 of 1972 under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules challenged. Analysis: The judgment by S.C. Pratap, J. focused on the challenge to the validity of Notification No. 155 of 1972 issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioners, represented by Mr. R.K. Habbu, contested the legality and validity of the impugned notification. However, the judge found no merit in the challenge as there was no dispute regarding the validity of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules or Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The challenge was solely directed towards the impugned notification being ultra vires the powers of the Central Government, which the judge deemed difficult to accept given the conceded rule-making power and the validity of the Act. During the hearing, Mr. Habbu attempted to challenge the impugned notification's coverage on the article in question. However, the judge clarified that this aspect was beyond the challenge to the notification's validity. The petitioners were advised to address their contentions on the applicability of the notification before the Excise authorities if needed. The judge emphasized the distinction between challenging the notification's applicability to a specific case and questioning its legality or validity. Referring to a previous ruling, the judge highlighted that it did not support the petitioners' challenge in this case, as the issues differed. Concluding the judgment, the judge upheld the legality and validity of the impugned notification. The excise authorities were directed to assess the petitioners' claims regarding the notification's applicability to their case. The petition was dismissed, with no costs imposed. An interim order was extended at the request of the petitioners' counsel until a specified date, subject to further court decisions.
|
