9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltra vires of the provisions contained in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thereby dismissed the appeals. Thus, it would clearly indicate that co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as Division Bench of this Court has dealt extensively with regard to constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No. 6682/2002 (T-TAR) - - - Dated:- 17-3-2015 - Aravind Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Sri G Shivadass, Adv. For the Respondent : Miss Geetha, Adv. for Sri N R Bhaskar Panel, Adv. ORDER Heard Sri Shivadass, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Ms.Geetha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent dated 27.09.2013 dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner pursued its grievance before Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No.3808/2014 and 17219/2014 which was later converted as Civil Appeal Nos.7823/2014 and 7825/2014. These Civil Appeals were heard along with other connected Civil Appeals by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by order dated 13.08.2014 judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.315/2006 c/w 4722-23/2011 came to be set aside and all matters came to be restored to the files of respective High Courts for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. It came to be held by Hon'ble Apex Court, as under: 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGRAH V. DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS's case reported in (2010) 14 SCC 75 there was no challenge to the validity of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules. 4. Perusal of the said order would indicate that legality and constitutionality of Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was not in issue in Doaba's case and as such all matters pending before it came to be remitted back. However, order passed by this Court on 7.12.2005 would indicate issue of constitutional validity of Rule 5 was under consideration and judgment of learned Single Judge came to be affirmed on re-appreciation of contentions by Division Bench on 27.09.2013 in W.A.Nos.315/2006 c/w 4722-23/2011. Though Sri Shiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s vis- -vis persons whose duty liability can be or is being determined only by applying Rule 3 of the Determination Rules. It is on such twin grounds the petitioners have approached this court for a declaration that Rule 5 of the Determination Rules are ultra vires, unconstitutional and while the Rules are to be struck down and the petitioners be permitted to work out the relief consequential on such invalidation and for according the consequential relief to the petitioner. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having examined the rival contentions raised, as noticed hereinabove, had concluded as under: 50. Writ petitions on the ground that Rule-5 of the Determination Rules is ultra vires provisions of the Act or it is discriminatory cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch distinction cannot be stated to be unconstitutional since we are of the firm view that it has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. If the scheme contained in Section 3A, as we have observed earlier, provides solution to every situation which seems odd such as the one brought to our notice on the basis of the example. Class A manufacturer irrespective of the figures of production for the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and for subsequent years can approach the Commissioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 3A and produce evidence in support of his claim in respect of the actual production if it was lower than the production determined under subsection (2) of Section 3A. In other words, apart from the mechanism provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e including man power, if class A' manufacturer in 1996-97 could produce 150 bars/rods there was no reason for him to produce less number of bars/rods in 1997-98 unless there is a reason and the evidence in support thereof and if there is any such reason or evidence the manufacturer can take recourse to subsection (4) of Section 3A of the Act. It was also to check mischief, if any, on the part of manufacturer to show or go for lower/less production to gain an advantage of the scheme. We find that the classification have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law. The State, in the exercise of its governmental power, has, of necessity, to make laws operating differently in relation to different groups or class of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
