1991 (3) TMI 250 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal post-repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
3. Interpretation of legislative intent regarding the repeal.
4. Continuation of rights, liabilities, and proceedings under the repealed Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal Post-Repeal:
The primary issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear appeals under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 after its repeal on June 6, 1990, without a saving clause. The Tribunal considered the fundamental principle that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by mutual consent nor presumed by inference unless specifically provided by statute. The representatives for both parties and the Departmental Representative unanimously argued that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction due to the provisions of the General Clauses Act, particularly Section 6, which preserves rights, liabilities, and legal proceedings unless a contrary intention appears in the repealing statute.

2. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was pivotal in this case. It states that the repeal of an enactment does not affect previous operations, rights, liabilities, penalties, or legal proceedings unless a different intention is evident in the repealing statute. The representatives argued that the Tribunal, constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, continued to exist and hear appeals arising from the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, even after its repeal. They cited various judgments to support their argument, including Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Union of India and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, which reinforced the application of Section 6 in preserving rights and proceedings post-repeal.

3. Interpretation of Legislative Intent:
The Tribunal examined whether the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, indicated a legislative intent to terminate all pending proceedings. The historical context of the Gold Control legislation, including its introduction, amendments, and eventual repeal, was considered. The absence of a saving clause in the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990, was contrasted with previous repeals where saving clauses were included. The Tribunal referred to the statement of objects and reasons for the repeal, which highlighted the hardships and administrative difficulties caused by the Act, suggesting an intent to end its enforcement.

4. Continuation of Rights, Liabilities, and Proceedings:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the repeal without a saving clause affected the continuation of rights, liabilities, and pending proceedings. The majority opinion held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied, preserving these elements unless explicitly negated by the repealing statute. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observations in cases like Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Garikapatti Veerayya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, which emphasized that vested rights, including the right of appeal, could only be taken away by express enactment or necessary implication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, by majority opinion, concluded that it retained jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, despite its repeal. The appeals were saved under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as there was no clear legislative intent to terminate pending proceedings. The Tribunal directed the Registry to post all cases for hearing on merits, affirming the continuity of jurisdiction and the preservation of rights and liabilities under the repealed Act.