TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Finance Act provisions, dismisses challenge on constitutional grounds.</h1> <h3>M/s SML Isuzu Ltd. & Anr. V.E. Commercial Vehicle Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr</h3> M/s SML Isuzu Ltd. & Anr. V.E. Commercial Vehicle Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 643 (Del.) Issues Involved1. Validity of Sections 131(b), 132(1)(a), and 132(2) of the Finance Act, 1999.2. Validity of Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Whether the retrospective application of Rule 57F(4A) is constitutionally valid.4. Whether Rule 57F(4A) violates Article 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis1. Validity of Sections 131(b), 132(1)(a), and 132(2) of the Finance Act, 1999The Petitioners challenged Sections 131(b), 132(1)(a), and 132(2) of the Finance Act, 1999, claiming these provisions were ultra vires the Constitution of India. Section 131(b) introduced clause (xxviii) in Sub-section 2 of Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, empowering the Central Government to make rules for the lapsing of unutilized credit. Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(2) were enacted to validate Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 57F, which had been previously invalidated by the Supreme Court in Eicher Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.2. Validity of Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 57F mandated the lapsing of MODVAT credit for certain excisable goods as of 16.03.1995. The Supreme Court in Eicher Motors Pvt. Ltd. held this rule to be beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government. The impugned provisions of the Finance Act, 1999, were enacted to overcome this decision and validate the lapsing of accumulated MODVAT credit.3. Retrospective Application of Rule 57F(4A)The Parliament enacted Rule 57F(4A) to be effective from 16th March 1995. Sub-section (2) of Section 132 of the Finance Act, 1999, contains express provisions for sustaining any action in relation to the lapsing of credit of duty lying unutilized with the manufacturer. The Court observed that retrospective legislation is permissible if it cures defects in an earlier invalid legislation and the legislature has the competence over the object of the legislation. The retrospective operation of the Finance Act, 1999, was held valid as it cured the defect identified by the Supreme Court in Eicher Motors Pvt. Ltd.4. Violation of Article 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the ConstitutionThe Petitioners argued that Rule 57F(4A) was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating their rights under Article 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court noted that tax legislations are not immune from being challenged on grounds of unreasonableness and violation of constitutional rights. However, the Court held that Rule 57F(4A) was part of a rationalization of the excise duty structure and was not so irrational or unreasonable as to violate the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the legislative policy in aid of which Rule 57F(4A) was made was not irrational or unreasonable.ConclusionThe petitions challenging the validity of Sections 131(b), 132(1)(a), and 132(2) of the Finance Act, 1999, and Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were dismissed. The Court upheld the retrospective validation of Rule 57F(4A) and found that it did not violate the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. The legislative policy behind the rule was deemed rational and reasonable, and the additional burden on the Petitioners was not sufficient grounds for invalidating the rule.
TaxTMI 