9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to the Honourable High Court for decision. From the Application, the question of law proposed for reference to the Honourable High Court has been extracted from the Statement of Facts annexed to the Application: Whether Rule 57-I as amended vide Notification 28/88 (N.T.), dated 6-10-1988 incorporating the provision of time limit shall be applicable in respect for an act (i.e. availing of Modvat credit) committed during the period prior to the amendment of Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Heard Shri A. Choudhuri, learned D.R. and Shri Sekhar Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. In the Application, the following has been stated :- ..........................C.E.G.A.T. have erred in holding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f. 6-10-1988 merely modifies the time limit by making specific provisions for it and this is the only material effect of this amendment. Therefore, the right vested in the Government by Rule 57-I to reverse credit within reasonable period of limitation continues to exist even after the provisions have been modified with reference to the time limit w.e.f. 6-10-1988. This legal position obtained from the fact that the right created by a statute of an enduring character and vested in a person cannot be taken away even if the statute by which it was created, has expired. In fact, in the instant case, the statute has been merely modified and there is no express provision not even suggestion that the old right and liabilities existing prior to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices are issued after the amendment of Rule 57-I. The issue before the Honourable High Court was the challenge to the vires of Rule 57-I prior to its amendment with effect from 6-10-1988, the contention of the petitioners therein being that as the said Rule, before the amendment did not provide for the issue of notice or the opportunity of personal hearing and did not also have a period of limitation, the provisions were not in conformity with the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution of India. It was also contended by them that as there was no saving clause, the show cause notice issued earlier to the amendment of Rule 57-I would lapse after its amendment and no proceedings pursuant thereto would survive. This plea was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs and the period available would be the one as permissible under the provisions existing at the time of issue of show cause notice in spite of the fact that the short-levy or non-levy refers to the period when different period of limitation was available. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal had taken note of several judgments on the point that law of limitation is procedural and operates retrospectively and that the period prevailing on the date when the relief is claimed and not when the cause of action arises. The authorities relied upon in this connection included Memon Abdul Karim Hazi Tayab v. Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi, AIR 1964 SC 1256. It was held therein that procedural amendments to a law, in the absence of anythi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
