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 notices issued or actions taken under substituted Rules 10 and 10A, or omitted Rule 10, of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 stood discharged or terminated on substitution or omission of those rules.
Analysis: The charging provision for excise duty remained in the parent Act, and the changes made in the rules affected only the machinery and procedure for recovery. The liability to pay excise duty arose on manufacture or production of the goods and was not extinguished by alteration of the recovery procedure. The substituted and later omitted rules were treated as continuations of the earlier scheme, and the absence of an express saving clause did not destroy proceedings already initiated for recovery of duty. The earlier view that pending proceedings automatically lapsed on substitution or omission was not accepted.
Conclusion: The notices issued or actions taken under substituted Rules 10 and 10A, or omitted Rule 10, did not stand discharged or terminated, and the proceedings for recovery of excise duty continued to be maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the charging liability under the parent fiscal statute remains intact, substitution or omission of recovery rules affects only the machinery of assessment and recovery and does not, by itself, terminate accrued rights, vested liabilities, or pending recovery proceedings.