9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of erstwhile Rule and under Rule 173 Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. As facts of all the cases are similar, therefore, all the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of re-rolled products. Eight show cause notices were issued to them during the period 1998-1999 to demand duty by fixing annual capacity of production under Rule 96ZQ of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. The Said show cause notices were adjudicated on 31.1.2001. After the adjudication of show cause notices, the annual capacity of production was finalized by the adjudicating authority on 31.1.2001 which was remanded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for refixing on 13.9.2001. Thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Asstt. Commissioner's order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication for quantification of duty demand for period from 28-2-1999 to 5-11-1999 and the de novo adjudication proceedings were completed only in 2004 along after omission of Section 3A w.e.f., 11-5-2001 and omissions of Rule 96ZQ w.e.f., 1-3-2001 without saving clause. The point of dispute is as to whether the proceedings initiated before 1-3-2001 would survive after omission of Rule 96ZQ without saving clause w.e.f. 1-3-2001 and omission of Section 3A without serving clause w.e.f. 11-5-2001. We find that this issue was considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter automatically lapse and no order could be passed if they were not concluded at the time of omission of Section 3A w.e.f. 11-5-2001. In this judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has also considered the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 58 (P & H) and expressed its disagreement. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rayala Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. (supra), after omission of Rule 96ZQ w.e.f. 1-3-2001 and omission of Section 3A of the Act without saving clause w.e.f 11-5-2007, the proceedings initiated prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
