Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Gopi Krishna Processors (P) Ltd vs Union Of India And Another on 12 September, 2012
7. The main appellant M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. during the period prior to 01/10/98 were engaged in manufacture of non-alloy steel re-rolled products from non-alloy steel ingots and, as such, during the period prior to 01/10/98 were operating under compounded levy scheme of Rule 92 ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which was applicable only to non-alloy steel re-rolled products. They intimated the department that w.e.f. 01/10/98 they have switched over to manufacture of alloy steel re-rolled products to which the compounded levy scheme of Rule 96ZP does not apply and in this regard they claimed to have purchased alloy steel ingots from M/s Thapsons steel Ltd. However, it is now admitted that even during the period w.e.f. 01/10/98 i.e. during the period of dispute, M/s Thapar had continued to receive non-alloy steel ingots from M/s Thapsons and had continued to manufacture of non-alloy steel hot re-rolled products and Rule 96ZP would be applicable to them for the period of dispute. It is on this basis that the duty of Rs. 20,74,990/- has been demanded from them. However, we find that while the show cause notice for demand of the above duty alongwith interest and for imposition of penalty on M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. and its Director Shri Anoop Thapar had been issued on 17/05/2000, this show cause notice was adjudicated only on 06/04/05, that is after the omission of Rule 96ZP w.e.f. 01/03/01 and omission of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 11/05/01 without saving clause. Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors vs. Union of India (supra) has held that in view of omission of Rule 96ZO, 96ZP and 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 w.e.f. 01/03/01 by Notification No. 6/2001-CE (NT) dated 01/03/01 and omission of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 11/05/01 both without saving clause providing for initiation of proceedings for liabilities incurred during their currency or providing that the liability under then Rules would continue under regular provisions after their omission, not only the proceedings for recovery of duty short paid or non paid cannot be initiated after the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96 ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ, the proceedings initiated prior to omission would also lapse.
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 30 October, 2006
In this judgment Honble Gujarat High Court also considered the contrary view expressed by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 58 (P&H) and relying upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. Director of Enforcement reported in AIR 1970 SC 494 held that the view expressed by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner (supra) is not correct. In view of this judgment of Honble Gujarat High Court, the impugned order upholding the duty demand against M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. alongwith interest, imposing penalty on them and also imposing penalty on Shri Anoop Thapar, Director M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. and ordering confiscation of the goods seized from M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. would not be sustainable and hence the same is set aside.
Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors vs Director Of Enforcement, New Delhi on 23 July, 1969
In this judgment Honble Gujarat High Court also considered the contrary view expressed by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 58 (P&H) and relying upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. Director of Enforcement reported in AIR 1970 SC 494 held that the view expressed by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner (supra) is not correct. In view of this judgment of Honble Gujarat High Court, the impugned order upholding the duty demand against M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. alongwith interest, imposing penalty on them and also imposing penalty on Shri Anoop Thapar, Director M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. and ordering confiscation of the goods seized from M/s Thapar Concast Ltd. would not be sustainable and hence the same is set aside.
1