Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1241 - HC - Central ExciseAbatement claim as per Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 due to closure of furnace – Failure to comply with the Obligations under the rule – Held that:- Omission of a Rule as opposed to a mere repeal or deletion, does not confer legitimacy on pending proceedings as they would necessarily come to an end but this principle of law does not apply to the present case – Relying upon Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2006 (10) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (CHANDIGARH)] - With the introduction of Section 38A in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the omission or otherwise of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules would not affect any obligation or liability that had already accrued or incurred – thus, the contention that omission of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules would render adjudication of proceedings of abatement based upon Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules a nullity, are without merit – Decided against Appellant.
|