TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y either fully or partially. - Following decision of Krishna Processors (2012 (11) TMI 954 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd (2000 (2) TMI 823 - Supreme Court of India) - Application disposed of. - Appeal No. : E/347, 348, 349, 971 to 973/2007 - ORDER No. M/14448-14453/2014 - Dated:- 5-11-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P M Dave (Adv) For the Respondent : Shri J Nagori (AR) ORDER Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; All these applications are filed for extension of stay order which is passed by this Bench extending the stay granted. 2. Ld Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the initial stay order which was passed by this Bench and subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shna Processors (Supra) for the proposition that there is a protection of a right on liability accrued or incurred under Rule/Notification prior to its omission. 3. We have considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records. 4. The only issue is to be decided in all these extension of stay is whether from the initial grant of stay and extension thereof, which is in force beyond 7.8.2014, whether any application is required to be considered by the Bench for extending stay order; on the fact of omissions of 1st, 2nd and 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act 1944. In order to understand the issue, we need to reproduce the provisions of Section 35C(2A) prior to omissions of the provisos th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so shall be omitted. 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced earlier section, the Tribunal was mandated to hear every appeal within a period of 3 year from the date of which such appeal is filed; it was also mandated the Tribunal was within its power to extend the period of stay to such further period as seen fit, but not exceeding 185 days, if the appeal is not disposed of within the total period of 365 days from the date of initial grant of stay. The omissions of 1st , 2nd and 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act 1944, now has to be read to the effect that there is no provision for making any further applications for extension of stay nor Tribunal has powers for hearing and disposing the applications for extensi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view that in such a case the court is to look to the provisions in the rule which has been introduced after the omission of the previous rule to determine whether a pending proceeding will continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings will continue and be disposed of under the old rule, as if the rule has not been deleted or omitted, then such proceeding will continue. If the case is covered by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or there is a pari materia provision in the statute under which the rule has been framed, in that case also, the pending proceedings will not be affected by omission of the rule. In the absence of any such provision in the statute or in the rule, the pending proceedings wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afford protection to action already taken while Rule 96ZQ was in force, but cannot justify initiation of a new proceeding which will not be a thing done or omitted to be done under the rule but a new act of initiating a proceeding after the rule had ceased to exist. In the circumstances, in the present case, upon omission of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, in view of the language contained in the Notification dated 1st March, 2001, action already taken while the rule was in force would be protected. However, no new proceeding could be initiated after the rule had ceased to exist. 17.4 Thus, any obligation or liability etc. acquired, accrued or incurred under Section 3A of the Act would not be saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o proceedings could have been initiated thereunder and after the omission of Section 3A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001, without any saving clause, no pending proceeding under the said rules which had not been concluded before the omission came into effect, could be concluded thereafter. The proceedings culminating into the impugned orders having been initiated/concluded after the omission of Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules and Section 3A of the Act are, therefore, without any authority of law and as such, cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 9th November, 2001/1st January, 2002 (Special Civil Application No. 1984 of 2002), dated 31st December, 2003 (Special Civil Application No. 3637 of 2004) and dated 30th Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
