TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No. 41/2008 on 5-11-2008, framed the following substantial questions of law :- "(i) Whether the CESTAT is correct in law in applying the ratio of its earlier decisions which are distinguishable as in the relied upon cases the OIO's were passed after 11-5-2001 whereas in the instant case the Order-in-Original was passed on 22-9-2000 which was prior to 11-5-2001 i.e. the date on which Section 3A was omitted? (ii) Whether the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Section 121 of Finance Act, 2001, without any saving clause would effect the proceedings in respect of which decision has already been taken prior to the date of omission?" 4. This Court while admitting the appeal No. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under :- "12. First and foremost, it is important to refer to the definition of "enactment" contained in Section 3(19) of the General Clauses Act. The said definition clause states that "enactment" shall mean the following : "enactment" shall include a Regulation (as hereinafter defined) and any Regulation of the Bengal, Madras or Bombay Code, and shall also include any provision contained in any Act or in any such Regulation as aforesaid." 13. From this it is clear that when Section 6 speaks of the repeal of any enactment, it refers not merely to the enactment as a whole but also to any provision contained in any Act. Thus, it is clear that if a part of a statute is deleted, Section 6 would nonetheless apply. Secondly, it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, revoke, set aside, vacate, void, withdraw." 14. On a conjoint reading of the three expressions "delete", "omit", and "repeal", it becomes clear that "delete" and "omit" are used interchangeably, so that when the expression "repeal" refers to "delete" it would necessarily take within its ken an omission as well. This being the case, we do not find any substance in the argument that a "repeal" amounts to an obliteration from the very beginning, whereas an "omission" is only in futuro. If the expression "delete" would amount to a "repeal", which the Appellant's counsel does not deny, it is clear that a conjoint reading of Halsbury's Laws of England and the Legal Thesaurus cited hereinabove both lead to the same result, namely that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment and it also contains provisions relating to payment of interest and penalty in event of delay in payment or non-payment of dues. Thus, this is a comprehensive scheme in itself and general provisions in the Act and the Rules are excluded. (at page 751) 33. On the facts before the Gujarat High Court, there were three civil applications each of which challenged the constitutional validity of the aforesaid rules insofar as they prescribed the imposition of a penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding without any discretion to reduce the same ....