9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Baroda in an adjudication proceeding ordered the appellant to pay the duty of excise at the appropriate leviable rate on 15823.7 kgs. of unmanufactured tobacco stated to have been illicitly received into and removed from their L-2 premises. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/- on each of the 98 sale notice under Rule 32 stating each transaction as a separate and independent transaction. He further imposed another penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 40 in respect of 2 T.P.I, dated 15.4.1978 and 4.4.1978 under Rule 40 of the Central Excise Rules. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the appellants herein, preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Board, while setting aside the demand of duty, maintained the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been omitted altogether. It was omitted only insofar as it relates to unmanufactured tobacco. Shri Senthivel relied on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in support of his contention that action can be initiated after their repeal. The initiation of action is in respect of violation of the rules which were existing on the date of violation. 5. Shri Poonekar in reply contended that there is no scope to invoke Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Section 6 has no applications to the Rules. It only applies to the Acts or Regulations. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions the one and the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Collector committed an error of law in imposing penalties on the strength ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal. Rule 32 of the Central Excise Rules was wholly omitted. Rule 12 was omitted so far as it relates to unmanufactured tobacco. The omission of the Rule took place on 1.3.1979. The show cause notice was issued on 23.5.1979 after the Rules were omitted. It is necessary to point out while omitting the said Rules no clause was incorporated saving the operation of the said Rules in respect of acts or omissions done prior to the omission of the said Rules. In the circumstances, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. is attracted. The issue of show cause notice on the basis of non-existing Rules as well as the imposition of penalty in pursuance of such a show cause notice is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tretched to but urged that Rules acquire the same status as that of statute, as contemplated by Section 3(19) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or 'Regulations', as defined in Section 3(5) thereof." 11. The Supreme Court also considered the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in the case of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court observed, "In the case before us, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act cannot obviously apply on the omission of Rule 132A of the D.I.Rs for the two obvious reasons that Section 6 only applies to repeals and not to omissions, and applies when the repeal is of a Central Act or Regulation and not of a Rule." 12. Having regard to the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
