TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants M/s. Wipro Ltd., in Appeals E/289/96, E/1511-1515/96 submitted that the proceedings were initiated in terms of Rule 57K and since the relevant provisions were omitted from the statute, he has nothing to add further in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above and leaves it to the Bench to pass an appropriate order. 3.Shri. B.V. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants M/s. Jindal Steel Ltd., [E/S/26/2K(B)-E/6/2K(B)], Shri. S. Vijay Kumar, [E/S/27/2K(B)-E/41/2K(B)], M/s. Loharu Steel Industries Ltd. and Shri Anil Agarwal, [E/S/23-24/2001-E/40-41/2001)] submitted that since the relevant rules were omitted from the statute, proceedings initiated under the respective rules are not sustainable but nevertheless appeals are maintainable to redress the grievances of the assessees. He said that in the similar facts and circumstances appeal was admitted by the Tribunal and unconditional stay has been granted in the case of Dharpan Jain & Others v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.) = 2000 (42) RLT 765. 4.Shri. Raghavan appearing for the appellants M/s. Wintech Ltd., (E/S/2000-E/3/2000) and M/s. Tractor & Farm Equipments Ltd., (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government are repealed/omitted. As a result when a rule is repealed or substituted or omitted, any investigation or legal proceedings including adjudication proceedings initiated by issuance of a Show Cause Notice during the time when the rule was enforced cannot continue on such repeal/ substitution or omission". He submitted that proceedings shall include proceedings at the appellate stage, as it was held in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd., 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathew M. Thomas v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). Accordingly since the relevant rules were omitted from the statute, starting from Show Cause Notice nothing survives including appeal before the Tribunal. He requested that Tribunal by exercising inherent jurisdiction may direct the Department to return the pre-deposit amount which has already been paid in terns of Section 35F of the Act, in pursuance of the stay order. 6.Shri. Lakshminarayan appearing for the appellants M/s. Bellar Steels Ltd. and M/s. Mohan Aluminium (P) Ltd. in Appeal Nos. E/S/6/2000-E/17/2000 and E/S/2-5/2001-E/4-7/2001 submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns specified therein. Barring this transitional provision, there is no saving clause with reference to any old rule pertaining to Modvat credit existed prior to the amendment. Till 31-3-2000, all wrongly availed credit on Modvat inputs could be demanded by the Department under Rule 57-I of the CER, 1944. Similarly wrongly availed credit on capital goods could be recovered under Rule 57U. The Modvat scheme was replaced by the new scheme with Cenvat credit from 1-4-2000 by substituting Rules 57A to 57U with new Rules 57AA to 57AK. The new Rule 57AB states that : "manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit (herein referred to as Cenvat credit of) of duty excise...... paid on any inputs or capital goods received in the factory on or after the first day of April, 2000." 57 AH reads : "where the Cenvat credit has been taken or utilised wrongly, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer and the provi sions of Sections 11A, 11AA and 11AB of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries". Rules are provided for recoveries of wrong Cenvat credit in the new rule, but nothing was provided for recove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which has been introduced after omission of the previous rule to determine whether a pending proceeding will continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under the old Rules as if the rule has not been deleted or omitted then such a proceeding will continue. If the case is covered by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or there is a pari materia provision in the statute under which the rule has been framed in that case also the pending proceeding will not be affected by omission of the Rule. In the absence of any such provision in the statute or in the rule the pending proceedings would lapse on the rule under which the notice was issued or proceeding was initiated/being deleted/omitted. It is relevant to note here that in the present case the question of divesting the Revenue of a vested right does not arise since no order directing refund of the amount had been passed on the date when Rule 10 was omitted." Para 38 :- "The position is well known that at common law, the normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate if from the statute book as completely as if it had never been pass....