9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and also on job work basis with the materials supplied by others. After the approval of relevant price lists the appellants paid duty. However, the Asstt. Collector issued a show cause notice proposing to recover duty alleged to be short levied on the metal containers. The appellants submitted a reply. On a consideration of the reply the Asstt. Collector held that there was no case for recovery of any duty alleged to have been short paid. The Central Board of Excise Customs issued a show cause notice on 8th May 1978 proposing to review the order under Section 35A. After considering the reply submitted by the appellants the Board passed the impugned order reviewing the order of the Asstt. Collector in its order dated 16th June, 1981, ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that new Section 35A has come in substitution of the old Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and therefore, Section 35A has in effect been repealed by Section 35A. 5. It is submitted that where a new provision is substituted for an existing provision the result is an express repeal of the existing provision and enactment of a new one in its place. The effect of repeal is to destroy all inchoate rights and all causes of action that may have arisen under the repealed statute. 6. He also submitted that under Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, a proceeding saved is only a proceeding in respect of any right and privilege acquired or accrued and any obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order is maintainable by virtue of Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act. 12. The question, therefore, is whether the Board has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 13. The relevant provision Section 35(A) read as follows before the amendment: 35A. Revision by Board. The Central Board of Excises and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 may of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which any decision or order has been passed under this Act or the Rules made thereunder (not being a decision or order passed on appeal under Section 35) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order and may pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o revise the proceedings. 15. However, neither the Board was abolished nor the Board was divested of the jurisdiction to hear the revision applications pending before it by express words stating that all proceedings pending before it shall stand transferred to the Collector. In the absence of such a provision the Board continued to have jurisdiction to hear the revision applications, as at the time when they were filed the Board had jurisdiction to entertain them. In this context we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the appellants and reported in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra - (AIR 1976 SC P. 237) where the facts are as follows: 16. On the 11th September, 1966 in an accident the husband of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of forum i.e. a change of adjectival or procedural law and not of substantive law. It is a well-established proposition that such a change of law operates retrospectively and the person has to go to the new forum even if his cause of action or right of action accrued prior to the change of forum. He will have a vested right of action but not a vested right of forum. If by express words the new forum is made available only to causes of action arising after the creation of the forum then the retrospective operation of the law is taken away. Otherwise the general rule is to make it retrospective. The expressions arising out of an accident" occurring in sub-section (1) and over the area in which the accident occurred , mentioned in sub-sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that: It is legitimate to think that the legislature did not think it necessary to affect the pending suits but wanted the cheap remedy to be available as soon as the Tribunal was constituted by the State Government in all cases irrespective of the date of the accident, provided the remedy of going to the court was not barred on the date of the constitution. 19. In the instant case also the legislature has not expressed any intention affecting the pending proceedings before the Board while taking away the jurisdiction of Board to revise any proceeding arising out of any order or decision under Section 35(A). Therefore, in the absence of a provision, affecting the proceedings pending before the Board the Board shall continue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
