Omission of compounded levy provisions and mandatory equal-penalty rule rendered pending excise demands and adjudication unsustainable.

Omission of Section 3A and Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ without a saving clause meant pending compounded levy proceedings could not be continued or concluded thereafter. Section 38A did not preserve proceedings after omission, and Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 did not save liabilities or adjudication under the omitted charging and machinery provisions. Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), which imposed a mandatory penalty equal to the duty outstanding without discretion, was held ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 and beyond the rule-making power under Section 37. The impugned demands were therefore unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings for compounded levy could continue or be concluded after omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the absence of any saving clause; (ii) whether Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 saved liabilities or pending proceedings under the omitted provisions; (iii) whether Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which mandated penalty equal to the duty outstanding, was valid.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings for compounded levy could continue or be concluded after omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the absence of any saving clause.

Analysis: The charging provision for the compounded levy scheme was Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ were the machinery provisions. Once those provisions were omitted, and no saving clause preserved pending action, the adjudicating authority had no statutory foundation to continue or conclude proceedings under the omitted scheme. The omission was treated as taking the provisions out of the statute book for future action, and proceedings not concluded before the omission could not be sustained thereafter.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the compounded levy scheme could not validly continue or culminate after the omission of the relevant provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 saved liabilities or pending proceedings under the omitted provisions.

Analysis: Section 38A was held to operate in relation to amendment, repeal, supersession or rescission of rules, notifications or orders, and not to save proceedings where the relevant provisions stood omitted. Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 did not preserve action taken under an omitted charging section so as to allow pending matters to be concluded after omission. In the absence of a specific saving provision, the accrued liability and pending adjudication under Section 3A and the omitted rules were not preserved.

Conclusion: Neither Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 nor Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 saved the impugned proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which mandated penalty equal to the duty outstanding, was valid.

Analysis: The penalty provision was mandatory and left no discretion with the adjudicating authority, irrespective of the length of delay or the circumstances of default. It imposed the same severe consequence even for minimal delay and treated dissimilar situations alike. The rule also travelled beyond the rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and conflicted with the constitutional limits on taxation and penal exactions.

Conclusion: Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and beyond the authority of Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication orders were without authority of law, and the demands based on the compounded levy scheme could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the charging provision and the connected scheme provisions are omitted without a saving clause, pending proceedings not concluded before omission lapse and cannot be concluded thereafter; a mandatory penalty provision that removes all discretion and imposes disproportionate liability is ultra vires.

---