9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The appellants are engaged in the processing of fabrics falling under chapter 52, 54 and 55 of the schedule to the CETA. They discharged Central Excise duty on the basis of Annual Production Capacity determined under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 issued under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by Notification No. 42/1998-CE (NT) dated 10.12.1998, as amended. 2. There was a dispute regarding the number of chambers installed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted before omission of Rule 96ZQ of the erstwhile Rules. It has been submitted that the impugned order was passed in continuation of the proceedings before omission of the said Rule and therefore, the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court and Tribunal would not be applicable in this case. 5. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. We find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Alwar Processing 2014 (308) ELT 720 (Tri. Del.), on the identical issue, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 6. Though the show cause notices for duty demand of ₹ 45,55,061/- had been issued during the period prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the General Clauses Act and whether after the omission of Section 3A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001 proceedings initiated under the Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules would survive? Whether Section 38A of the Act saves all obligations and?(iii) 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? 7. The Hon ble High Court relying upon the judgments in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1969) 2 SCC 412 and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) concluded that no proceedings could have been initiated under the omitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
