Bombay High Court
Jam Shri Ranjit Singhji Spg. & Wvg. Mills ... vs Union Of India. on 25 September, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1992(38)ECC188, 1990ECR591(BOMBAY), 1991(52)ELT365(BOM)
JUDGMENT Pendse, J.
1. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Solapur, served three show cause notices dated February 8, 1977, October 7, 1977 and October 7, 1977 on the petitioners under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 demanding duty short levied. The petitioners filed their reply and the Assistant Collector, Solapur by order dated June 5, 1982 made the show cause notices absolute. The petitioners preferred appeals before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, but the appeals ended in dismissal by order dated August 20, 1982. These orders are under challenge.
2. Shri Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that the principal controversy in the petition stands concluded by the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 539 [Kamala Mills Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.]. Shri Shah submitted that the petitioners desire to raise on more contention to urge that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to pass order on three show cause notices issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. Shri Shah very fairly stated that this issue was not raised before the two authorities below or in the petition, but submitted that as the question is one of pure law the petitioners should be permitted to raise it for the first time for hearing. We granted permission.
3. The contention urged by Shri Shah is that Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules was deleted with effect from November 1, 1980 and was substituted by Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The learned counsel urged that on deletion of Rule 10 all the proceedings commenced by the Superintendent of Central Excise by service of show cause notice must come to an end. The learned counsel urged that there is no provision for saving proceedings already commenced under Rule 10 and therefore the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to make the show cause absolute. In support of the submission, reliance is placed upon two decisions of the Gujarat High Court reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 24 [Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.) and 1988 (36) E.L.T. 563 [Mehendra Mills Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.]. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 201 [Ajanta Paper Products, Ratanpura v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur & Anr.]. We are unable to accept the submission. We have already held in Writ Petition No. 1645 of 1982 decided on September 18, 1990 and in Writ Petition No. 2232 of 1982 decided on September 20, 1990 that the proceedings commenced under Rule 10 do not come to an end merely because of deletion of the rule. We have held that proceedings are saved in view of provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act. Shri Shah very fairly pointed out that the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 844 [Gwalior Rayon Mfg. (Wvg) Co. v. Union of India & Ors.] and Delhi High Court in the judgment reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 205 [Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.] have also held that the proceedings are saved and do not come to an end by deletion of Rule 10. Accordingly, the contention urged by Shri Shah cannot be accepted and the petition must fail.
4. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.