LexKOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD. ETC ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD. ETC ETC.
B
v.
UNION OF I~DIA
FEBRL'ARY 1, 20CO
(S.f'. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE,
D.P. MUHAPTRA AND N. SA"ITOSH HEGDE, JJ.j
General Clau>es Act 1897, s. 6 r/w. Central Excise Rules 1944, Rules
IO and JOA (omittedj and Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, s. I I-A-Excise
C authorities issuing notice under Rule lOA asking appellant to show cause why
rebate of excise duty erroneously allowed should not be recovered -Rules 10
and JOA deleted and new Rule JO ir1troduced by notification dated August 6,
1977 without any savings clause-Assistant Collector confinning demand by
order dated October 15127, 1977-Appellant Ul!SUccessfully challenging order
D before Collector, Central Government and High Court-Whether the proceed-
ings for recovery of rebate of excise duty wrongly allowed could be continued
after deletion of Rule under which it was initiated--Held, no; s. 6 is not
applicable in the case of omission of a Rule- -Proceedings lapsed after August
6, 1977 and any order passed in the proceedings thereafter was to be treated
as non- est-Interpretation of Statutes.
E
The appellant, which becamt: a subsidiary of Kolhapur Sugar Mills
Ltd. (I(SM) in 1972, was issued a fresh licence by the eAcise authorities
for manufacture of sugar. Pursuant to a claim made by the appellant, the
excise authorities by an order dated October 4, 1973 allowed sugar incen-
F tive rebate of excise duty applicable to ua1 units for the 1973-74 season.
G
Subsequently by a notice dated April 24, 1977 issued by the Assistant
Collector under Ruoi lOA of the Centrnl Excbe Rules 1944 ('Rul~'), the
appdlant was u~!•ed to show cause •why the rebate of excisc duty erroneous-
ly allowed should not be recovered.
On August 6, 1977 a notification w-.is issued omitting Rules 10 and
lOA of the Rul~s and introducing a new Rule 10. The notification did not
contain any SU\'ing clause.
The Assistant Collector by au order dated October 15127, 1977
H confirmed the demand of rebate of excise duty wrongly allowed. The
518
' ,
KOLHAPUR CANESUUAR WORKS LTD. v. lJ.O.l.
519
appellant failed in its appeal before the Collector, and subsequent revision A
before the Central Government. The appellant's writ petition was also
dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
Before thb Court, the appellant relied upon the decision in Raya/a
Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, [1970) l SCR 639 to
contend that s. 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 applied only to the repeal
of an Act or Regulation and not to a Rule. Accordingly, in the absence of
a specific savings clause, the proceedings initiated under the old rule lOA
ceased to exist after August 6, 1977 when the new Rule 10 was introduced.
The appeals against decisions of the High Courts on the same issue as well
B
as the above case were directed to be heard and were heard hy a Constitu-
C
tion Bench of this Court in view of the importance of the question.
Disposing of the appeals, this Court
Held 1.1. The proceeding lapsed after August 6, 1977 and any order
passed in the proceeding thereafter was to be treated as non-est. [536-F]
D
1.2. Rule 10 or Rule 10-A was neither a "Central Act" nor a 'Regula·
ti on' as defined in the General Clauses Act. s. 6 was applicable where any
Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of the General
Clauses Act repealed any enactment. It was not applicable in the case of E
omission of a "Rule". [535-E]
Raya/a Corporation (P) ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, [1970] l SCR
639, followed.
Mehendra Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988) 36 ELT 563 (Gujarat);
F
Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 21 ELT 24 (Guj.),
affirmed.
Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Limited v. Union of India,
(1993) 42 ECC 126 (Guj.) (FB); Falcon Tyres Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) G
60 ELT 116 (Karnataka), overruled.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. R. Sharadamma, [1996] 8
SCC 388 and Nagammai Cotton Mills v. Regional Director, Employees State
Insurance Corporation Madras { 1994/ Supp. 2 SCC 142 and Chief In~pector
of Mines v. KC. Thaper, AIR (1961) SC 838, distinguished.
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2CCOj 1 S.C.R.
A
S. Krislinan v. State of Madras, AIR (1951) SC 301; Ajanta Paper
Products, Ratanpura, Agra v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, (1982) ELT
201 (ALL), referred to.
1.3. When the question to be considered was whether a particular
provision of the Act applied inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.