AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent company, they were also having proprietary interest in another unit viz. Anubhav Textile, Kairthal, which was engaged in the weaving of grey fabrics by Power Looms and according to them, the production of grey fabrics by M/s. Anubhav Textile, during 1998-99 (up to Feb., 1999) was Rs. 2.68 Lakhs. The Central Government under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 specified the rate of excise duty on the processed textile fabrics falling under Heading Nos. 52.07, 52.08, 52.09, 54.06, 54.07, 55.11, 55.12, 55.13, 55.14 of the Tariff, manufactured by an independent processor with the aid of Hot Air Stenter. In terms of Para 6 of this notification, the same was not applicable to a composite mill i.e. a manufacturer or proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-99. On appeals being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 28-3-2001 set aside the orders-in-original No. 5/2000, dated 18-2-2000 and also the order-in-original No. 87/2000, dated 3-7-2000 so far as it covered the period from 16-12-98 to 27-2-2099 and for the subsequent period from 28-2-99 remanded the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner for de novo consideration in terms of the directions given in Para 12D of the order. Thus, by this order, the duty demands for the period 16-12-98 to 27-2-99 were set aside and the demands in respect of the period from 28-2-99 onwards, the matter was remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner for de novo adjudication. In de novo adjudication, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M/s. Anubhav Textile was negligible - less than 1% of the production of processed fabrics by the respondent as independent processors. She also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 58 (P&H) wherein it was held that notwithstanding the omission of Section 3A w.e.f. 11-5-2001 and omission of Rule 96ZO, 96ZP, 96ZQ w.e.f. 1-3-2001, the liability of the assessee for the period prior to 1-3-2001 when the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZQ was in operation, would survive. She, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order setting aside the duty demand and penalty is not correct. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner's order vide order-in-appeal dated 28-3-2001 had set aside the duty demand for the period from 16-12-98 to 27-2-99 and had remanded the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner for period from 28-2-1999 for quantification of the duty demand as per the directions in the order and the de novo adjudication order confirming duty demand of Rs. 45,55,061/- was passed only on 20-2-2004 i.e. after the omission of Rule 96ZQ and Section 3A without any saving clause. He accordingly pleaded that the proceedings for duty demand of Rs. 45,52,061/-, which had not concluded prior to omission of Section 3A, as would not survive, Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules had been omitted without any saving clause. He, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after have initiated action for breach thereof by issuance of show cause notice and/or could have continued with the proceedings initiated but not concluded prior thereto? (ii) Whether any obligation or liability incurred under Section 3A of the Act is saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and whether after the omission of Section 3A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001 proceedings initiated under the Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules would survive? (iii) Whether Section 38A of the Act saves all obligations and liabilities incurred under Rule 96ZQ of the Rules? If yes, whether the said position would prevail even after the omission of Section 3A of the Act?" 7. The Hon'ble High Court relying upon t....