9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 19-5-1995. That was a demand under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The demand was based on the allegation that Modvat credit taken by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,54,346.71 on certain capital goods was not admissible. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. Ld. Advocate, Sh. Bipin Garg for the appellants has, at the outset, drawn my attention to a decision of the Bangalore Regional Bench of this Tribunal (in the case of Wipro Ltd. Ors. v. CCE, Bangalore) reported in 2001 (43) RLT 317. That decision was rendered in a batch of appeals [filed in 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001] mostly involving issues pertaining to Modvat credits availed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prayed for by the respective parties. Accordingly all these appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Ld. Counsel relies on Wipro (supra) and submits that the present appeal proceedings should be considered to have lapsed. His argument is that the issues involved in the appeal relate to a demand of duty raised in 1995 under the old Rule 57U. Since that rule was repealed with effect from 1-4-2000 without any saving clause to protect proceedings already initiated under that rule, the appeal proceedings should be held to have lapsed on 1-4-2000, submits Counsel. 5. Ld. JDR, Sh. Swatantra Kumar, on the other hand, argues that the demand in the instant case was not raised under Rule 57U simpliciter but under that rule read with Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Apex Court's ruling so followed by the Tribunal Bench is contained in para 35 of the judgment of the Court :- If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under the old rule as if the rule has hot been deleted or omitted then such a proceeding will continue. If the case is covered by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or there is a pari materia provision in the statute under which the rule has been framed in that case also the pending proceeding will not be affected by omission of the rule. In the absence of any such provision in the statute or in the rule the pending proceedings would lapse on the rule under which the notice was issued or proceeding was initiated being deleted/omitted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
