9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 724 - HC - Central ExciseProduction capacity based duty - Sec.3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - R.5 of the Rules,1997 is neither in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India nor ultra vires to Sec.3A of the Act,1944. The parties will abide by the final outcome of the pending proceedings before the Apex Court and the petitioner, apart from validity of R.5 of the Rules,1997 which we too have held to be intra vires to Art.14 of of the Constitution of India, will be at liberty to contest the other issues before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CESTAT, as the case may, if he so wishes and in these terms, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Issues involved:
Validity of R.5 of Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules,1997 in contravention of Sec.3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Quashing of order passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur; Notice issued by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jaipur. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the validity of R.5 of the Rules,1997, alleging it violated Sec.3A of the Act,1944. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in a related case held that R.5 is not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution or ultra vires to Sec.3A. The Bench emphasized the rational nexus between the classification under R.5 and the objective of the law. It was noted that the rule aims to prevent manipulation and ensure fair determination of annual capacity. The High Court of Rajasthan concurred with the Karnataka High Court's judgment, affirming that R.5 is constitutionally valid and in line with the Act,1944. The petitioner sought to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur, and a subsequent notice from the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jaipur. The High Court acknowledged that an appeal had been filed before the CESTAT regarding the Commissioner's order. The court also mentioned a related case pending before the Apex Court, indicating the outcome would influence the present petition's final decision. The court directed that the judgment would align with the Apex Court's decision on the pending appeal to avoid further litigation. In light of a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, affirming the validity of R.5 of the Rules,1997. The court emphasized that apart from the issue of R.5's validity, the petitioner could contest other matters before the appropriate authorities. The ruling clarified that the petitioner's rights to contest other issues remained intact, while the decision on R.5's validity aligned with the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The final outcome was linked to the pending appeal before the Apex Court, ensuring consistency in legal proceedings.
|
