TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : Justice K. Sreedharan, President]. These two applications are at the instance of the appellants in Appeal Nos. 3264/2000-NB and E/3556/2000-NB. In appeal, they challenge orders passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of the adjudicating authority imposing duty liability/reversal of Modvat credit. In Appeal No. E/3264-NB, the amount of duty claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in Kolhapur Canesugar Works v. Union of India [2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)]. According to the Counsel, as per that decision the entire action initiated lapsed by deletion of Rule 57-I on 1-4-2000. The orders impugned are unsustainable and consequently the appellants cannot be asked to make pre-deposit to entertain the appeals. 3. In the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., their Lordsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the Court is to look to provisions in the rule which has been introduced after omission of the previous rule to determine whether a pending proceeding will continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under the old rule as if the rule has not been deleted or omitted, then such a proceeding will continue. 4. On the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, Delhi-III [2001 (127) E.L.T. 486 (Tribunal) = 2000 (41) RLT 938]. In that case the Bench was dealing with the case where adjudication order was passed subsequent to the deletion of the Rule 96ZL. That situation makes a difference between the reported case and the case on hand. That difference, according to us justifies our stand that the said decisions cannot apply to the facts on hand. 6. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
