High Court Invalidates Central Excise Rule 8(3A) for Violating Constitution

The High Court declared Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution due to being unreasonable, irrational, and arbitrary. This decision was based on previous rulings by other High Courts and the lack of opposing arguments. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under this rule were set aside, and the writ petition challenging the validity of the rule and notices was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notices issued under the provision.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court addressed the challenge to the validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, along with the notices issued by authorities under this provision. It was noted that three different High Courts in the country had previously declared Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires of the Constitution, citing reasons such as being unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Specifically, the Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court, and Punjab and Haryana High Court had all struck down Rule 8(3A) in separate cases. The learned Additional Solicitor General acknowledged the pending appeals before the Apex Court related to these matters but did not present any arguments to support a different view. Consequently, the High Court, relying on the aforementioned judgments and the grounds for declaring the provision unconstitutional, declared Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As a result, the impugned notices issued under this provision were set aside, leading to the allowance of the writ petition challenging the validity of the rule and notices.

---