2019 (12) TMI 552 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court Remands Case to Division Bench for Review of Rule 5's Validity Under Constitutional Challenge.

The SC determined that the Division Bench's reference was misaligned with the appellant's challenge concerning the vires of Rule 5 under Section 3-A of ... Validity of Rule 5 of CER - Whether an assessee who chooses once to pay duty in terms of Rule 96-ZP(3) can be compelled to pay duty calculated in accordance with the said Rule for all times to come without any regard to the actual production is a question which requires examination? HELD THAT:- The question posed before us did not arise at all on facts and the question which has been referred is not something which the assessee disputes. The matter is sent back to a Division Bench to decide the questions stated in para 20 of Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited and Another [2017 (3) TMI 1357 - SUPREME COURT]. Issues:Challenge to the validity of Rule 5 under Section 3-A of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed a reference arising from a Division Bench judgment regarding the validity of Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules. The Division Bench had not answered the specific question posed before it, which related to the validity of Rule 5 on grounds of being ultra vires Section 3-A of the Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Instead, the Division Bench delved into a different question concerning the compulsion to pay duty under Rule 96-ZP(3) without regard to actual production. This new question was referred to a larger Bench for examination, as the Division Bench found it distinct from previous judgments and deemed it necessary for further clarification. The appellant's counsel clarified that the challenge was focused on the vires of Rule 5 and not on the compulsion to pay duty under Rule 96-ZP(3) as per Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act.The Supreme Court, after considering the misdirection in the reference made by the Division Bench, concluded that the question referred did not align with the appellant's challenge regarding the vires of Rule 5. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Division Bench to address the original questions raised in the case regarding the validity of Rule 5 under Section 3-A of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court directed the Division Bench to decide on other related issues mentioned in the original judgment. Consequently, the appeals and tagged matters were disposed of accordingly, ensuring a comprehensive review of the legal issues at hand.