2023 (2) TMI 942 - HC - Central Excise

Court invalidates excise duty rules, emphasizes legal consistency, dismisses appeals citing precedents.

Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi, The Commissioner of Central Excise – Coimbatore, Race Course Road, Coimbatore, The Superintendent of Central Excise, Erode Range, Erode Versus M/s. Sri Suryodhaya Textile Processing

The court found the impugned notifications and rules invalid, citing unsustainable methods of determining production capacity for levying excise duty. ... Levy of duty based on production capacity u/s 3A - specified textile products - Legality of Notification No.36,1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998, Notification No.42/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998 and Notification No.43/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998 - rate of duty on textile fabrics - HELD THAT:- Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was omitted by Section 121 of the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 11.05.2001 as has been observed by the Division Bench in its order dated 18.07.2008 in W.A.Nos.2366 to 2369 of 2002 etc., batch. Though Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was reintroduced by Section 79 of the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 10.05.2008, no corresponding Notification was issued for bring the textile products within the purview of tax under Section 3A of the Act. Following Notifications were issued by the Central Government to specify the rate of duty:- i. Notification.42/2008-C.E., dated 01.07.2008 as amended by Notifications No.43/2008-C.E., dated 15.07.2008, No.13/2012-C.E., dated 17.03.2012, No.6/2015-C.E., dated 01.03.2015 and No.17/2016- C.E., dated 01.03.2016. ii. Notification No.16/2010-C.E., dated 27.02.2010 as amended by Notifications No.19/2010-C.E., dated 13.04.2010, No.14/2012-C.E., dated 17.03.2012, No.5/2015-C.E., dated 01.03.2015 and No.16/2016- C.E., dated 01.03.2016. As no corresponding Notification was issued to bring the textile products under Section 3A of the Act once again and since issue has already attained finality, these Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of Notification No. 36/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998.2. Validity of Notification No. 19/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 01.03.2000.3. Validity of Notification No. 42/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998.4. Validity of Notification No. 14/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 01.03.2000.5. Validity of Notification No. 43/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998.6. Validity of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.7. Applicability of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.8. Judicial precedents and their implications on the current case.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Notification No. 36/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998The Notification No. 36/1998-C.E. (N.T.) specified the rate of duty on specified goods manufactured by an Independent Processor with Aid of Hot-Air Stenter based on annual production capacity under Section 3A of the Act. This notification was later amended by Notification No. 19/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 01.03.2000. The court found that the government's method of fixing the production capacity based on their determined value, rather than actual production, was unsustainable.Issue 2: Validity of Notification No. 19/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 01.03.2000This notification amended Notification No. 36/1998-C.E. (N.T.). The court held that the amendments did not rectify the fundamental issue of determining production capacity based on a deemed value rather than actual production, making the notification unsustainable.Issue 3: Validity of Notification No. 42/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998Notification No. 42/1998-C.E. (N.T.) framed the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The court held that these rules lacked an acceptable method to determine production capacity, which is necessary for levying excise duty under Section 3A of the Act. Consequently, Rule 3 of these rules was deemed ultra vires Section 3A of the Act.Issue 4: Validity of Notification No. 14/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 01.03.2000This notification amended Notification No. 42/1998-C.E. (N.T.). The court found that the amendments did not address the core issue of determining production capacity accurately, rendering the notification unsustainable.Issue 5: Validity of Notification No. 43/1998-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10.12.1998Notification No. 43/1998-C.E. (N.T.) dealt with the procedure for independent processors of textile fabrics and the consequences of failing to pay duty. The court found that the procedures and penalties outlined were based on the flawed rules in Notification No. 42/1998-C.E. (N.T.), making this notification unsustainable as well.Issue 6: Validity of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944The court referenced the case of Beauty Dyers Vs. Union of India, where Rule 96ZQ was held ultra vires Section 3A of the Act. This precedent was affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, making Rule 96ZQ unsustainable.Issue 7: Applicability of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944Section 3A, which allowed for the determination of excise duty based on production capacity, was omitted from the statute book with effect from 11.05.2001. Although it was reintroduced in 2008, no corresponding notifications were issued to bring textile products under its purview again, rendering the section inapplicable to the present case.Issue 8: Judicial Precedents and Their ImplicationsThe court relied heavily on the precedent set by the case of Beauty Dyers Vs. Union of India, which was affirmed by higher courts, including the Supreme Court. The judgments in related cases such as Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Entex Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Angadpal Indl. P.Ltd. further reinforced the unsustainability of the impugned notifications and rules.Conclusion:The court concluded that the impugned notifications and rules were unsustainable and dismissed the writ appeals. The judicial discipline required maintaining uniformity with the established precedents, particularly considering that compounded levy on textile products had not been reintroduced after 2001. Consequently, the writ appeals were dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.