Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 44 (GUJ)

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Cosmos Denim

2017-01-11

B.N.KARIA, M.R.SHAH

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order No. A/12197/2014 dated 26th November 2014 in Appeal No. E/426/2007 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"], the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal to consider the following questions of law: [A] "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that the respondent - assessee is not liable to pay duty, penalty and interest under the provisions of Rule 96ZQ 5 (i) and 96ZQ (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the light of the fact that the said Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ were omitted w.e.f. 01.03.2001 and the said Section 3A was omitted w.e.f. 11.05.2001, although the duty, penalty and interest are pertaining to the period prior to the dates of omission of the said Rules and the Section 3A of the Central Excise Act?" [B] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that the respondent - assessee is not liable to pay duty under the provisions of Rule 96ZQ 5 (i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under the provisions of Rule 96ZQ 5 (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the light of the fact that the said Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ were omitted w.e.f. 01.03.2001 and the said Section 3A was omitted w.e.f. 11.05.2001, when omission of the said Section is saved by insertion of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. Heard Shri Ankit Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Department. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. Considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has heavily relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Processors v. Union of India, 2012 [280] ELT 180 (Guj.). Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. Considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has heavily relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Processors v. Union of India, 2012 [280] ELT 180 (Guj.). 3.1 Earlier, it was reported that against the decision of this Court in case of Krishna Processors [Supra], matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, Appeal was ordered to be adjourned sine die. It is reported that thereafter, the issue is concluded against the Revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 643 . 4. Shri Ankit Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that now in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [Supra], the issue is concluded against the Revenue. 5. In view of the above undisputed facts, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed by answering the questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. The present Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.