2016 (9) TMI 527 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - this issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of M/s A.T.V. Projects India Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others 2016 (9) TMI 321 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT wherein it was held that Rule 8(3A) of Rules 2002 is declared violative of Article 14 of Constitution and as a result thereof. Since the matter is concluded by above judgement of this Court, therefore, no substantial question arises. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
Validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Analysis:
The appeal in question arose from a judgment passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant's counsel raised a question regarding the validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, it was noted that this issue had already been decided by the High Court in a previous judgment. The previous judgment, in Writ Tax No.85 of 2011, declared Rule 8(3A) of the Rules, 2002 as violative of the Constitution, specifically Article 14. This decision was based on similar rulings by different High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court, and Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had all struck down Rule 8(3A) for being unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14. The Additional Solicitor General could not provide any new arguments to sway the Court's decision. Consequently, the High Court upheld the previous judgment, declaring Rule 8(3A) as unconstitutional and setting aside the impugned notices issued under this provision. As the matter had already been conclusively decided by the previous judgment, the High Court found no substantial question to address in the current appeal and dismissed it accordingly.