Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned notifications and rules framed for levy of excise duty on textile processing units under the compounded levy scheme could survive after the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in the absence of any corresponding notification when the provision was later reintroduced.
Analysis: The notifications challenged in the connected writ appeals were part of the earlier compounded levy regime for textile processors. That regime had already been held to be unsustainable in earlier proceedings, where the rate-fixing and capacity-determination notifications were found to be inconsistent with the statutory scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The earlier view had attained finality, including before the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that Section 3A stood omitted by Section 121 of the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 11.05.2001 and, although it was reintroduced by Section 79 of the Finance Act, 2008, no corresponding notification was issued to bring textile products back within its ambit.
Conclusion: The impugned notifications and rules could not be sustained, and the writ appeals were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: When the statutory basis for a compounded levy scheme has been omitted and no fresh notification is issued after its reintroduction, the earlier notifications and rules cannot continue to operate against the assessees.