9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 692 - HC - Central ExciseObligations and liabilities incurred under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP - omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 11-5-2001 and also the omission of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 w.e.f. 1-3-2001 - Held that - writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court made in 2013 (12) TMI 1478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Following the same - Decided against assessee.
Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed by 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and unsustainable. Application of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act post omission of Section 3A and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. Validity of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent, alleging it to be arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and unsustainable, citing principles from previous Supreme Court decisions. The learned counsel argued that the issue at hand was similar to a previous Division Bench order in W.P. Nos. 32670 & 32671/2007 dated 5-12-2013. The Division Bench had considered the effect of the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. It was noted that Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, was applicable to obligations and liabilities incurred under the omitted rules. The Division Bench's decision in CMA No. 861/2007 on 5-12-2013, which upheld the validity of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, was also referenced. In light of the previous decisions, the court dismissed the present writ petition, following the precedent set in CMA No. 861/2007. The court held that since there was no challenge to the validity of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, the relief sought in the writ petition could not be granted. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed in line with the decision of the court.
|
