High Court Invalidates Central Excise Rule Violating Constitution

The High Court declared Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and set aside the impugned order. The court relied on judgments from other High Courts and found the rule to be unreasonable, irrational, and arbitrary. The writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 8(3A) was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002

In this judgment by the High Court, the petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioners specifically focused on Rule 8(3A) and not Rule 25 of the same Rules. The court noted that Rule 8(3A) had been declared ultra vires of the Constitution by three different High Courts in the country - Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court, and Punjab and Haryana High Court. The rule was found to be unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Additional Solicitor General acknowledged the pending appeals in the Apex Court regarding the matter but failed to present any argument to support a different view. Relying on the judgments of the aforementioned High Courts and the grounds for striking down the provision, the High Court declared Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and set aside the impugned order dated 21-4-2006. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.

---