9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, Central Excise, Jaipur & so also further notice issued from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jaipur dt.20/23-8-1999 in consequence to the decision impugned dt.20-7-1999. As regards validity of R.5 of the Rules,1997 is concerned, the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court at Benlagore in WA No.331/2006 (M/s. Meenakshi Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. Union of India) & other connected mattters, after due appreciation of the provisions of Rules,1997 & R.5 in particular, finally observed that R.5 is neither in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution nor ultra vires to Sec.3A of Act,1944 and we consider it appropriate to quote para-25-27 of the judgment relied upon by respondent's counsel, as under :- "25. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mechanism provided in the proviso to Sub-section(2) and provisio to Subsection( 3) under Sub-section(4), the assessee who claims that the actual production of his notified goods was lower than the production determined in Sub-section(2), the Commissioner is empowered to determine the actual production, after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence in support of his claim and redetermine the amount of duty payable to the assessee with reference to such actual production at the rates specified in Sub-section (3). Further, Sub-section(5) provides refund of duty paid in excess if the Commissioner finds on the basis of the evidence produced by the assessee in support of his claim taking that actual production was lower tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... groups or class of persons to attain certain ends. 27. In the result, we are of the opinion, that Rule 5 is neither violative of Article 14 of the Constitution nor ultra vires the provisions contained in Section 3A of the Act. The appeals are accordingly dismissed." After we have gone through the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (supra) we are in conformity with the view expressed that R.5 is neither in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution nor ultra vires to Sec.3A of the Act,1944. It is informed to this Court that as regards further notice served upon the petitioner dt.20/23--8-1999 in consequence to the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur dt.20-7-1999, appeal has been preferred before the CESTAT. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner concerned, Commissioner (Appeals) & CESTAT, if he so wishes." In the light of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, referred to supra, the present writ petition in the terms mutatis mutandis stands disposed of and while concurring the view expressed in the judgments, referred to supra, we hold that R.5 of the Rules,1997 is neither in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India nor ultra vires to Sec.3A of the Act,1944. The parties will abide by the final outcome of the pending proceedings before the Apex Court and the petitioner, apart from validity of R.5 of the Rules,1997 which we too have held to be intra vires to Art.14 of of the Constitution of India, will be at liberty to contest the other issues before the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
