TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble in the impugned orders. In these terms, impugned orders are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 56095-56102 of 2013-EX(SM) - - - Dated:- 24-12-2014 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Bipin Garg, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms Ranjana Jha, AR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty has been confirmed against them under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under 4th proviso to Rule 96 ZP of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed penalty under proviso to Rule 96ZP (3) of erstwhile Rule and under Rule 173 Q of the erst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. The issue whether the proceedings against the appellant can be continued under Rule 96 ZQ of the erstwhile Rules after 1.3.2001 or not has been dealt with by this Tribunal in Alwar Processors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: 6. Though the show cause notices for duty demand of ₹ 45,55,061/- had been issued during the period prior to omission of Rule 96ZQ i.e. prior to 1-3-2001 and these show cause notices had initially been adjudicated during the period prior to 1-3-2001, on appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), vide appellate order dated 28-3-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) liabilities incurred under Rule 96ZQ of the Rules? If yes, whether the said position would prevail even after the omission of Section 3A of the Act? 7. The Hon 'ble High Court relying upon the judgments in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1969) 2 SCC 412 and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd, reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) concluded that no proceedings could have been initiated under the omitted Rule 96ZQ after omission affection. 3A w.e.f. 11-5-2001 in absence of any saving clause. The Court further held that all proceedings which were pending as on 11-5-2001, even if initiated prior to omission of Rule 96ZQ would thereafter automatically lapse an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
