9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material records are that M/s.Adhavan Processor (P) Ltd, Erode, are processors of textile fabrics and were paying duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. From 16.12.1998, compounded levy scheme was introduced to independent textile processors under Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules were framed as per Notification No.36/98-Central Excise and 42/98-Central Excise, both dated 10.12.1998. From 01.03.2000, the first respondent/assessee was required to pay duty in terms of the annual production capacity, determined by the Commissioner. Accordingly, after taking note of all the factors contained in the Rules, the Assistant Commissioner, Erode, determined the annual production capacity and consequently, the rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as invalid and inoperative. On that score, the first respondent/assessee prayed to set aside the orders of the jurisdictional Commissioner determining the annual production capacity and consequently the duty. Accepting the contention of the first respondent/assessee, at paragraph No.5.3 of the common order in Appeal Nos.341-342/2003 dated 19.12.2003, the appellate authority held as follows: 5.3 In the order dated 20.02.2002, the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in the WP No.3891/2000 WMP No.5977/2000 filed by the very same appellants has held that, - "3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of section 3A of the Central Excise Act and the notifications issued there under. In the decision of this court referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the same has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide judgment dated 18.07.2008. In the above said circumstances, CESTAT, Madras in Appeal E/431/2004 dated 08.02.2011 has dismissed the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem has filed the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether it is correct on the part of Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai in dismissing the appellant's appeal in Writ Appeal No.640 of 2003 which was dismissed not on merits of the case only for non prosecution, while restoration petition was filed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras? 2. Whether it is correct on the part of the Hon'ble CESTAT to dismiss the case when a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted, Substantial Questions of Law raised by the appellant as it stood, does not merit any consideration. But, having regard to the effect of the judgmnet of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. reported in 2016 (3) SCC 643, on pending matters, and on the facts and circumstances of this case, and in the light of the subsequent developments, we deem it fit to admit the appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate the law that the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is an Amendment to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is saved by Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897" 9. At the outset, we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
