TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ah with Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal for the petitioner. Ms. Shalaka Gujar for the respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.S.Oka, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed a declaration that Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the said Rules") is illegal and null and void and is liable to be struck down. 2. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rule 96ZQ was mandatory in nature. That is the reason why the order of the Appellate Tribunal reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 5,000/was set aside by the Division Bench and the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 4.5 lakh was restored. 3. The present petitioner challenged the order of the Division Bench by preferring Civil Appeal No.2864/2010. Though the said appeal was dismisse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a), Rule 96ZQ, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order of penalty will have to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra), the Apex Court has held that Rule 96ZQ is invalid. As observed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14th July 2009 becomes inoperative. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by passing the following order: O R D E R (i) Prayer clause (a) does not survive in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra); (ii) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b); (iii) If the petitioner has already paid the penalty in terms of the order....