Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 202 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 202 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 73 (Kar.) - Validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Whether Rule 5 of the Rules is liable to be declared unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 and/or ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- it has been held by the Division Bench [2015 (9) TMI 151 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 199 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

002 (T-TAR) - Dated:- 17-3-2015 - Aravind Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Sri G Shivadass, Adv. For the Respondent : Miss Geetha, Adv. for Sri N R Bhaskar Panel, Adv. ORDER Heard Sri Shivadass, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Ms.Geetha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri N.R.Bhaskar for respondents. 2. Petitioner has sought for following reliefs in this writ petition: a) Declaring that Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 is illegal, ul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on Rules, 1997 without reference to Rule 5 thereto and collect excise duty based on such determination for the period 1-9- 1997 to 31-3-2000; e) Direct respondents to refund to the petitioner the excess amount of duty over and above the sum payable as determined pursuant to prayer (d) above along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of payment to date of refund; f) Quash circular dated 30-8-1997 (Annexure-F) in so far as it is ultra virus and unconstitutional; This petition had be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

14 and 17219/2014 which was later converted as Civil Appeal Nos.7823/2014 and 7825/2014. These Civil Appeals were heard along with other connected Civil Appeals by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by order dated 13.08.2014 judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.315/2006 c/w 4722-23/2011 came to be set aside and all matters came to be restored to the files of respective High Courts for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. It came to be held by Hon'ble Apex Cour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Steel Rolling Mills' case (supra) the legality and constitutional validity of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules was not put in issue. 4. Learned counsel are right in their submission as the judgment of this Court in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills (supra) (para 20 of the report at page 758) clarifies as under: "Before addressing the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to note at the outset that in all these appeals, there is no challenge to the validity of Rule 5 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unsel appearing for parties namely, in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGRAH V. DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS's case reported in (2010) 14 SCC 75 there was no challenge to the validity of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules. 4. Perusal of the said order would indicate that legality and constitutionality of Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was not in issue in Doaba's case and as such all matters pending before it came to be remitted back. However, order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition and same had been adjudicated by learned Single Judge as well as by Division Bench, he submits that on account of other matters having been remitted back to respective High Courts, present petition also landed before this Court, fact of constitutional validity of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules had been considered by this Court cannot be lost sight of. 5. In that view of the matter, I have perused the order passed by this Court dated 07.12.200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thin the permitted limits as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Act and therefore Rule 5 is ultra vires. The second ground of attack is that Rule 5 has the effect of bringing about an invidious classification and the effect of discrimination against persons like the petitioners vis-à-vis persons whose duty liability can be or is being determined only by applying Rule 3 of the Determination Rules. It is on such twin grounds the petitioners have approached this court for a dec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s provisions of the Act or it is discriminatory cannot succeed and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs." In fact, petitioner herein pursued its grievance before Division Bench by filing appeal - W.A.Nos. 315/2006 and 4722-23/2011 before the Division Bench and following question came to be examined by Division Bench of this Court. It reads as under: "4. The question that falls for our consideration in these appeals is "Whether Rule 5 of the Rules is l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3A. In other words, the differentia or classification, as alleged, have a rational nexus with the object to be achieved by the law. To test this view, we would like to once again refer to the example given by the learned senior counsel for the appellants to emphasis that Rule 5 is discriminatory. Class A manufacturer to whom, according to the appellants, a gross injustice is likely to be done, in our opinion, is also without any substance. Even if it is assumed that provisions contained in Rule .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

year 1996-97, 1997-98 and for subsequent years can approach the Commissioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 3A and produce evidence in support of his claim in respect of the actual production if it was lower than the production determined under subsection (2) of Section 3A. In other words, apart from the mechanism provided in the proviso to Sub-section (2) and proviso to sub-section (3) under Sub-section (4), the assessee who claims that the actual production of his notified goods was lower th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of his claim taking that actual production was lower than the production determined under Sub-section (2) of the Act. 26. If we look at Rule 5 from another angle, we are further satisfied about the view taken by us. Rule provides that if the production during the year 1996-97 was more than the production determined by the formula in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, then that has to be taken as the annual capacity for the financial year 1997- 98 and the subsequent years. This rule, it seems, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version