TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition stands disposed of. - D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5235/1999 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2016 - Ajay Rastogi And J. K. Ranka, JJ. For the Petitioner : Kamlakar Sharma, Alankrita Sharma For the Respondent : Ajay Shukla ORDER Instant petition has been filed assailing validity of R.5 of Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules,1997 ( Rules,1997 ) it has been prayed that it is in contravention of Sec.3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( Act,1944 ), at the same time prayer has also been made for quashing setting aside the order dt.20-7-1999 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur so also further notice issued from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jaipur dt.20/23-8-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the object sought to be achieved by the Act. If the scheme contained in Section 3A, as we have observed earlier, provides solution to every situation which seems odd such as the one brought to our notice on the basis of the example. Class A manufacturer irrespective of the figures of production for the 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 sub-section(2) of Section 3A. In other words, apart from the mechanism provided in the proviso to Sub-section(2) and provisio to Subsection( 3) under Sub-section(4), the assessee who claims that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o produce less number of bars/rods in 1997-98 unless there is a reason and the evidence in support thereof and if there is any such reason or evidence the manufacturer can take recourse to sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Act. It was also to check mischief, if any, on the part of manufacturer to show or go to lower/less production to gain an advantage of the scheme. We find that the classification have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law. The State, in the exercise of its governmental power, has, of necessity, to make laws operating differently in relation to different groups or class of persons to attain certain ends. 27. In the result, we are of the opinion, that Rule 5 is neither violative of Articl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court, the writ petition would also be treated as allowed. However, if the appeal is dismissed by the Apex Court, there would be no change in the judgment. In view of the above, the outcome of this petition would be governed finally by the outcome of the appeal pending before the Apex Court on the same challenge. The direction aforesaid is being given to avoid multiplicity of litigation. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. It is however made clear that all other issues other than the validity of Rule 5 of Excise Rules, the petitioner would be at liberty to contest them before the Commissioner concerned, Commissioner (Appeals) CESTAT, if he so wishes. In the light of the judgment of the Coordinate Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
