9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the procedure was already prescribed in Notification dated 6.9.2004 and, therefore, the question of revising procedure for such proof touching upon the matter already covered by Notification dated 6.9.2004 does not arise for the reason that an executive order, laying down something otherwise than what is prescribed in the Notification would not be permissible in law. It is well established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by an executive order, i.e., Circular No. 354/70/97-CX dated 13.11.1997, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-9 to writ petition, and it is contended that in the Statutory Order/Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 6.9.2004, there is no such restriction of limitation and a statutory order issued in exercise of power under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding. 4. In my view, the above argument of learned counsel appearing for respondents would not help him for the reason that by means of Circular in question, Central Board of Excise and Customs has revised the procedure, which was to be followed in respect to acceptance of proof of exports, though the procedure was already prescribed in Notification dated 6.9.2004 and, therefore, the question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject but the executive orders cannot be issued which are inconsistent with the statutory rules already framed. In Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and another Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Smithi and another, JT 2001 (8) SC 171 also the same view was taken. 6. In K. Kuppusamy and another Vs. State of T.N. and others, 1998 (8) SCC 469 the Court said that statutory rules cannot be overridden b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
