9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chine was sealed from 07.02.2000 to 31.03.2000. The said abatement claim was rejected by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I, on the ground that during the said period, the factory was not completely closed as provided under Rule 96ZQ(7) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said order was challenged by the appellant before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which was entertained by Hon'ble High Court and the letter of Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedad-I was set aside. In pursuance of the direction of Hon'ble High Court, Show Cause Notice dt.21.10.2004 was issued to the appellant directing them to show cause as to why their abatement claim be not rejected as provided under Rule 96ZQ (7) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8A of the Act saves all obligations and liabilities incurred under Rule 96ZQ of the Rules? If yes, whether the said position would prevail even after the omission of Section 3A of the Act? (iv) Whether in view of Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 everything done under the old provision is saved? (v) Whether Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Rules which does not provide for any inbuilt discretion in respect of the penalty to be imposed thereunder is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and the Act? (vi) Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Supreme Steels and General Mills Ltd. (supra) concludes the controversy involved in the present case? 8. Out of these six questions of law before Hon'ble High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not concluded at the time of omission of Section 3A of the Act. 9. Their Lordships, after considering the scope of Rule 96ZQ, in Para 22 categorically ruled as under:- For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is held to be ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that after the omission of Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules with effect from 1st March, 2001 no proceedings could have been initiated thereunder and after the omission of Section 3A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001, without any saving clause, no pending proceeding under the said rules which had not been concluded before the omi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
