Omitted excise rule confiscation and secured creditor priority: statutory absence of first charge gave SARFAESI precedence.

Confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained after the rule had been omitted, because the saving provisions in Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not preserve proceedings for confiscation of land, building, plant or machinery. The substituted rule regime applied only to goods, not immovable assets or plant and machinery, so the confiscation orders were without jurisdiction. In the absence of a statutory first charge under the Central Excise Act before insertion of Section 11E, a secured creditor's rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 prevailed over excise dues. The secured creditor therefore had priority over the department's claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation orders could validly be passed under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after that rule had been omitted from the statute book; (ii) Whether the secured creditor's claim had priority over the Central Excise Department's dues in the absence of a first-charge provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation orders could validly be passed under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after that rule had been omitted from the statute book.

Analysis: The confiscation orders were made in 2007 under Rule 173Q(2), although that rule had been omitted in 2000. The saving provisions in Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not sustain the proceedings because omission of a rule is not governed in the same manner as repeal of an enactment, and the later rule-making regime did not preserve confiscation of land, building, plant or machinery. The substituted rules also indicated that confiscation thereafter related to goods, not immovable assets or plant and machinery.

Conclusion: The confiscation orders under Rule 173Q(2) were without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the secured creditor's claim had priority over the Central Excise Department's dues in the absence of a first-charge provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Prior to insertion of Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there was no statutory first charge in favour of excise dues. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 defines secured asset, secured creditor and security interest, authorises enforcement under Section 13, and gives the Act overriding effect under Section 35. In the absence of a first-charge provision in the excise law, the secured creditor's rights prevail over unsecured governmental dues, and the later insertion of Section 11E did not displace the SARFAESI regime.

Conclusion: The secured creditor's claim had priority over the Central Excise Department's dues.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation orders could not stand, and the secured creditor was entitled to precedence over the excise dues on the statutory scheme then in force.

Ratio Decidendi: A confiscation order cannot be sustained when it is founded on a rule that stood omitted and was not preserved by a saving provision, and in the absence of a specific statutory first charge, secured creditor rights under a special enactment with overriding effect prevail over unsecured revenue dues.

---