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

2016 (8) TMI 384 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (8) TMI 384 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 562 (Mad.) - Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate the law that the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is an Amendment to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is saved by Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - Held that:- by applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. [2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT], upholding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gh the first respondent M/s.Adhavan Processor (P) Ltd has been served and their name has been shown in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. 2. Facts deduced from the material records are that M/s.Adhavan Processor (P) Ltd, Erode, are processors of textile fabrics and were paying duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. From 16.12.1998, compounded levy scheme was introduced to independent textile processors under Section 3-A of the Centr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith effect from 01.04.2000 respectively, under sub rule (3) of Rule 4 of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 2000 vide orders in (a) C.No.IV/16/109/2000 Pol.Misc. dated 28.6.2000 and (b) C.No.IV/16/51/2000 Pol.Misc. dated 21.03.2001. Vide proceedings in C.No.IV/16/109/2000 Pol.Misc. dated 28.6.2000, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode Division, Erode, determined the annual capacity production in terms of the above said r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem. A perusal of the common order passed by the appellate authority dated 19.12.2003 shows that when the said appeals came up for hearing, submission has been advanced that W.P.No.3891/2000 filed by the first respondent/assessee challenging the Notification Nos.36/98 Central Excise and 42/98 Central Excise, both dated 10.12.1998 made by the Ministry of Finance was allowed in their favour holding the impugned notifications as invalid and inoperative. On that sco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as held that, - "3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of section 3A of the Central Excise Act and the notifications issued there under. In the decision of this court referred to above, while upholding the validity of Section 3A, this court has held that Rule 3 of the Rules issued in the Notification No.42/98 cannot be sustained as such rule is ultra vires of section 3A of the Act. It has been further held that the other rules issued under the other notificati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and other rules issued under other notifications, the ACP orders issued by the Lower Authority, challenged in the present appeals are no longer valid and the same are set aside." 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem, Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem has filed an appeal No.E/431/2004. After hearing the representation of the department and the records, Customs, Excise and Ser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether it is correct on the part of Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai in dismissing the appellant's appeal in Writ Appeal No.640 of 2003 which was dismissed not on merits of the case only for non prosecution, while restoration petition was filed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras? 2. Whether it is correct on the part of the Hon'ble CESTAT to dismiss the case when a similar issue is pending before t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as dismissed for non prosecution as early as 18.7.2008. Mr.Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in that appeal has submitted that already steps have been taken for restoration. In view of the above, the matter is adjourned for three weeks." 7. Fate of the application stated to have been filed for restoration is not known. However, inviting the attention of this court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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