2002 (5) TMI 73 - HC - Central Excise

Interpretation of statutes - Repeal of Act - Proceedings - Interpretation of statutes - Precedent

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notice issued under the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
2. Applicability of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to proceedings initiated under the Defence of India Rules.
3. Impact of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990 on ongoing proceedings.
4. Authority and jurisdiction of the adjudicating officers post-repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued Under the Defence of India Rules, 1962:
The petitioner, a jeweller and manufacturer of gold ornaments, was served with a show cause notice on 9th February, 1967 by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Calcutta and Orissa. The notice was issued under Rule 126M of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, following a raid on the petitioner's premises on 2nd September, 1965, where a significant quantity of gold and gold ornaments was seized. The petitioner challenged the validity of this notice. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no invalidity in the issuance of the show cause notice. The petitioner then filed the present appeal.

2. Applicability of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to Proceedings Initiated Under the Defence of India Rules:
The Defence of India Rules were later replaced by the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Supreme Court in Jayantilal v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 1193) had held that proceedings initiated under the Defence of India Rules could continue under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. This was supported by Section 116(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, which provided that actions taken under the Defence of India Rules were deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the Gold (Control) Act.

3. Impact of the Repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990 on Ongoing Proceedings:
The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was repealed by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990. The statement of objects and reasons for the repeal highlighted the failure of the Act to achieve its objectives and the hardships it caused to artisans and small goldsmiths. The question arose whether the show cause notice could survive post-repeal. It was argued that the repeal should not affect the ongoing proceedings due to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves actions taken under the repealed Act unless a different intention appears. The court held that the liability had already accrued when the show cause notice was issued, and therefore, Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act saved the proceedings.

4. Authority and Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officers Post-Repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:
Post-repeal, the designation of the adjudicating officers changed from Collector of Central Excise and Customs to Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. The court held that this change in nomenclature did not affect the authority of the officers to adjudicate the matter. The proceedings initiated under the repealed Act could continue to be adjudicated by the newly designated officers.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the authorities were directed to proceed and dispose of the matter expeditiously. The court upheld the validity of the show cause notice and ruled that the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not affect the ongoing proceedings due to the saving provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The change in the designation of the adjudicating officers was deemed immaterial to their jurisdiction over the matter.