9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs was also imposed. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dt. 23.12.2005 rejected the appeal. Therefore the appellant are before us. 2. Shri C.S. Biradar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors Vs. Union of India 2012 (280) E.L.T. 186 (Guj.). He also submits that the said judgment was approved in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise 2015 (326) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.), therefore when the Rule 96ZO, 96ZP & 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were held ultra vires, the demand does not sustain. 3. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not itself provide for the levying of interest, Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ cannot do so and therefore, on this ground the appellant in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills has to succeed. On this ground alone therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside. That none of the other provisions of the Central Excise Act can come to the aid of the Revenue in cases like these has been laid down by this Court in Hans Steel Rolling Mill v. CCE, (2011) 3 SCC 748 = 2011 (265) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) as follows : "13. On going through the records it is clearly established that the appellants are availing the facilities under the compound levy scheme, which they themselves opted for and filed declarations furnishing details about the annual capacity of prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deposit the duty. The Gujarat High Court struck down the aforesaid Rules on the basis that not only were they ultra vires the Act but they were arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 34. Shri Radhakrishnan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue found it extremely difficult to argue that the aforesaid judgment was wrong. He therefore, asked us to limit the effect of the judgment when it further held that after omission of the aforesaid Rules with effect from 1-3-2001 no proceedings could have been initiated thereunder. In this submission he is correct for the simple reason that the Gujarat High Court followed Rayala Corporation in holding that omissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
