2019 (3) TMI 1377 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the omission of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by section 121 of the Finance Act, 2001, without any savings clause would affect proceedings in respect of which action had already been initiated? Held that - The learned Counsel for both the parties are ad-idem that in so far as substantial question of law framed by this Court is concerned, the said question is concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, PANAJI-GOA VERSUS M/S SHIVAM ISPAT (P) , LTD. 2019 (1) TMI 709 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and accordingly the impugned order passed by the CESTAT can be set aside and the appeals preferred by Assessee can be restored to the file of the CESTAT with a direction to dispose of these appeals on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the effect of the omission of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by section 121 of the Finance Act, 2001 on ongoing proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of the effect of the omission of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The High Court considered the substantial question of law regarding the impact of the omission of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by section 121 of the Finance Act, 2001 on ongoing proceedings. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had disposed of three appeals filed by the Assessee, setting aside the demand, interest, and penalty levied by the appellant. The appellant's counsel referred to judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court in similar cases to support their arguments.

The Court acknowledged the agreement between the counsels for both parties that the substantial question of law framed by the Court was settled by a previous judgment of the Court in a related case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders by CESTAT and restored the Assessee's appeals to CESTAT for a fresh decision based on their merits and in accordance with the law. The Court allowed the Revenue's appeals, quashed the impugned orders, and directed CESTAT to handle the appeals appropriately. The Court explicitly mentioned that all contentions of the parties, except those related to the omission of Section 3A of the Act, were left open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the impugned orders, restoring the appeals to CESTAT, and directing CESTAT to decide the appeals based on their merits and in compliance with the law. The Court clarified that all arguments, except those concerning the omission of Section 3A, were not addressed in this judgment. Additionally, the Court made no order regarding costs in this matter.