Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTEffective Date of beneficiary provisions - whether should be retrospective - Disallowance of utilization of the credit of Additional Excise Duty (GSI) on goods of special importance paid after 1 April 1996, but prior to 1 April 2000 for payment of duty for First and Second Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - constitutional validity. Held that:- The amended Rule with effect from 1 March 2003 has permitted utilization of the cenvat credit in respect of Act of 1957 for payment of duty of excise leviable under the First or the Second Schedule of the Tariff Act, 1985. Thus, as per the amended Rule, credit of Additional Excise Duty leviable under section 3 of the 1957 Act may be utilized towards the payment of duty of excise leviable under the First or Second Schedule of the Tariff Act. There is substance in the contention of the Respondents that in the Amendment Act no date was prescribed for availing and utilization of the Cenvat credit of the additional duty of excise paid. With the result that number of manufacturers had utilized cenvat credit lying with them as on 1 March 2003, for payment of cenvat credit duty payable on finished products/goods under section 3 of the 1957 Act. On realizing this, the Government amended the provision of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2000 retrospectively with section 88 of the Finance Act allowing utilization of Cenvat Credit of AED paid on or after 1 April 2000. That is how the explanation was substituted. We do not see how we can uphold the argument of the Petitioners that the restrictions placed by the Explanation should be interfered with any other stipulation as desired by them so as to make the provision operational from 1 April 1996. Manifestly arbitrary exercise of power or manifestly erroneous exercise of power is something which can be interfered with in judicial review. We do not find that any assistance can be derived from the judgment in Sitaram (1990 (3) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT) and for the purpose of the present case. In the present case, once the co-relation could not be established, then the Petitioners derive no benefit of the Constitutional provisions and selection of the date, namely, 1st April 1996 for they being brought into effect. We have noted as to how the argument based on this is misconceived and untenable. - Decided against assessee.
|