TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Beauty Dyers vs. Union of India reported in [2001 (12) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] in and by which the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capaciy Determinatin Rules, 1998 are held to be ultra vires of erstwhile Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the questions of law raised in these two appeals become acadamic in nature - Appeal disposed of. - CMA Nos. 1103 & 1104 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki, JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. P. Mahadevan For the Respondent : Ms S. Jaikumar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Revenue as against the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onth is at ₹ 4.5 lakhs. As the assessee did not pay the duty during the period 1.6.1999 to 30.11.1999 a show cause notice dated 13.12.1999 was issued by the Range Officer to demand the duty, interest and to impose penalty. Another show cause notice dated 5.5.2000 was issued for the period from 1.12.1999 to 31.3.2000. After due process of law, the Order-in-Original came to be passed demanding a sum of ₹ 2,73,226/- from the assessee under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The statutory interest of a sum of ₹ 1,64,739/- under Rule 96ZQ (5) (i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also demanded from the assessee. Along with these demands, a total penalty of a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n claim abatement. We do not find any reason why this liberal approach suggested by the Board should be resisted by the department. Yet another reason which we have found in favour of the respondents is that it is not the case of the Revenue that the abatement claims in question would have been rejected for any reason whatsoever, had they been filed after payment of duty. In other words, a revenue-neutral situation is discernible from the facts of this case. For the aforesaid reasons, without commenting on the case law, we sustain the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss these appeals. 5. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed these appeals before this Court. 6. Heard learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other Notifications which are impugned in the other writ petitions are only based on the rules issued in Notification No. 42/1998 and so the reasoning given above will apply to these rules also. So they also cannot be sustained consequently, they are set aside. But the petitioners are liable to pay duty of excise under Section 3 of the Act or under any other provisions contemplated for the same. 7. In view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Beauty Dyers vs. Union of India reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.) in and by which the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capaciy Determinatin Rules, 1998 are held to be ultra vires of erstwhile Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the questions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
