(Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal, the appellant Revenue has challenged order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”). While admitting the appeal, this Court had framed the following substantial question of law :
“Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in holding that Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 will not survive beyond 11.5.2001 i.e. the date of omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide Section 121 of the Finance Act, 2001, while not considering the provisions of Section 131 of the Finance Act, 2001?”
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent assessee has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Processors versus Union of India, 2012(280) E.L.T. 186(Guj.)to submit that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the said decision in favour of the assessee.
3. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant is not able to dispute the aforesaid position.
4. In the case of Krishna Processors versus Union of India(supra), this Court for the reasons stated in the said order ultimately held thus :
“22. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. Rule 96ZQ (5) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is held to be ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that after the omission of rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules with effect from 1st March, 2001 no proceedings could have been initiated thereunder and after the omission of section 3A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001, without any saving clause, no pending proceeding under the said rules which had not been concluded before the omission came into effect, could be concluded thereafter. The proceedings culminating into the impugned orders having been initiated/concluded after the omission of rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules and section 3A of the Act are, therefore, without any authority of law and as such, cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 9th November, 2001/1st January, 2002 (Special Civil Application No.1984 of 2002). dated 31st December, 2003 (Special Civil Application No.3637 of 2004) and dated 30th October, 2001 (Special Civil Application No.6779 of 2003) are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each of the petitions with no order as to costs.”
5. From the question as framed by this Court at the time of admitting the appeal, it is apparent that controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the above-referred decision of this Court. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
6. For the reasons stated in the decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Processors (supra), the question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (Harsha Devani,J.) (raghu)