9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 22.7.2004 only subsequent to omission of the relevant rule. In view of the clear pronouncement by the Gujarat High Court, determination of the appellant's liability, by the adjudication order as confirmed by the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeals Nos.E/1354 & 397 of 2005-EX (DB) - Final Order No.50689-50690/2014 - Dated:- 12-2-2014 - Shri G. Raghuram and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT Per Justice G. Raghuram: Heard ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri Udit Jain and Shri Sudhir Malhotra on behalf of the appellants and Shri Yashpal Sharma, ld. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of benefits under the Scheme set out in Rule 96 ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, towards full and final discharge of its excise duty liability for manufacture of its final products under Section 3 of the Act. 4. Under Rule 3 (4) of the 1997 Rules, the jurisdictional Commissioner by an order dated 6.11.97 provisionally fixed the annual capacity of the two mills as 8490.815 M.T. Consequently, the annual/monthly duty liability came to ₹ 25,47,244/- and ₹ 2,12,270/-, respectively. The appellant discontinued and dismantled the mill manufacturing the 305 mm. dia. products and sent up an intimation in this behalf to the jurisdictional officers. The jurisdictional Commissioner by an order dated 31.08.99 however again fixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der provisions of Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules is essentially not in dispute in these proceedings. The contention however is that in view of the omission of Rule 96 (ZP) w.e.f. 1.3.2001 and omission of Section 3 A of 1994 Act w.e.f. 11.05.2001, no proceedings could have either been initiated or even concluded, subsequent to omission of Rule 96 ZP w.e.f. 1.3.2001. This issue is presented for consideration by this Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgement of a Division Bench of a Gujarat High Court in Krishna Processors Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (280) ELT 186 (Gujarat). 8. In para-15 of Krishna Processors, the High Court held spelt out the issues falling for consideration. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11th May, 2001, in the absence of any saving clause. The Court further held that no pending proceedings under the Omitted Rules which had not been concluded before the omission came into effect, could be concluded thereafter. (emphasis) 10. In the facts of this appeal, though the initiation of proceedings, by issue of a show cause notice was prior to omission of Rule 96 ZP i.e. prior to 1.3.2001, the proceedings culminated into an adjudication order dated 22.7.2004 only subsequent to omission of the relevant rule. In view of the clear pronouncement by the Gujarat High Court, determination of the appellants liability, by the adjudication order as confirmed by the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), cannot be sustained. 11. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
