Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)Finance Act, 2020
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
India Cements Ltd. vs Cce [Alongwith Appeal No. ... on 11 April, 2003
9. Submission of Sri Pramod N. Kathavi is that the background under which Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 has been enacted is the decision of the CEGAT in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad Appeal No. E/1120/96-Md. = 1997 (95) E.L.T. 520 (Tribunal) and connected matters, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-D to W.P. No. 35767 of 2000; that for rendering of this decision, the Tribunal had not invalidated any provisions of law; that the Tribunal had only held that a reading of the relevant notification governing the availment of Modvat credit, the appellants therein had become entitled to the availment of such Modvat credit, but the Tribunal had not invalidated any provisions of law or rule and therefore there was no occasion at all for the Parliament to have enacted a validating levy and if there was no occasion, the very provisions of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 cannot be sustained inasmuch as it is the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was no cause of action for the Parliament to make such a law, which in effect and substance takes away certain benefits which had accrued to persons like the petitioners in the earlier existing valid notifications. It is therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 is unconstitutional.
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr vs Broach Borough Municipality & Ors on 25 April, 1969
16. Even on applying the test as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), the provision of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 achieves that very purpose which has been indicated by the Supreme Court to be the object and the purpose for which a validating levy can be made. If such is the law as laid down and declared by the Supreme Court on application of this provision, it inevitably follows that the validity of Section 112 has to be necessarily upheld. It is for this reason, the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has to be rejected.
1