LexM/S. SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 332 A M/S. SH REE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS B v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &ANR. (Civil Appeal No.4280 of 2007) NOVEMBER 24, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.) Central Excise Act, 1944: s.3A - Compounded levy c scheme- Interest for delayed payment of central excise duty u/s.3A - Held: Since s.3A which provides for a separate scheme does not itself provide for levying of interest, rr 96ZO, 96ZP, 96ZQ cannot do so - None of the other provisions of the Central Excise Act can come to the aid of the revenue in D such case - This is a comprehensive scheme in itself and general provisions in the Act and the Rules are excluded. Central Excise Rules, 1944: rr96ZO, 96ZP, 96ZQ - Constitutional validity of - Held: These rules prescribe E imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding without any discretion to reduce the same depending upon the time taken to deposit the duty- They were not only ultra vires the Act but they were arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - F Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 19. Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 199 7: r. 3(2) - Annual capacity of production - Relevant consideration - Held: Chartered Engineer G Certificate dealing with the sanctioned electrical load for a furnace is a relevant consideration which can be looked at in the absence of other factors mentioned in r 3. Repeal: Omission is a form of repeal -A repeal would H include a repeal by way of an express omission -A conjoint 332 J SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS v. CMMNR. 333 OF CENTRAL EXCISE reading of the three expressions "delete", "omit", and "repeal", A shows 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 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s. 6. Words and phrases: Omission, delete and repeal - Meaning of -Discussed. Disposing of the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1.1. When Section 6 speaks of the repeal of C any enactment, it refers not merely to the enactment as a whole but also to any provision contained in any Act. Thus, if a part of a statute is deleted, Section 6 would nonetheless apply. Secondly, the expression "omission" 0 is nothing but a particular form of words evincing an intention to abrogate an enactment or portion thereof. A conjoint reading of the three expressions "delete", "omit", and "repeal", shows that "delete" and "omit" are used interchangeably, so that when the expression E "repeal" refers to "delete" it would necessarily take within its ken an omission as well. This being the case, there is no 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" F would amount to a "repeal", it is clear that a conjoint reading of Halsbury's Laws of England and the Legal Thesaurus both lead to the same result, namely that an "omission" being tantamount to a "deletion" is a form of repeal. [Paras 13, 14] [344-E-G; 345-F-H; 346-A] G Halsbury's Laws of England; Legal Thesaurus (Deluxe edition) by William C Burton 1979 Edition - referred to. H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A 1.2. When this Court referred to Section GA in Fibre Board's case and held that Section GA shows that a repeal can be by way of an express omission, obviously what was meant was that an amendment which repealed a provision could do so by way of an express omission. B This being the case, it is clear that Section GA undisputedly leads to the conclusion that a repeal would include a repeal by way of an express omission. Fibre Board's case clarifies the law in holding that an omission would amount to a repeal. The converse view of the law C has led to an omitted provision being treated as if it never existed, as Section G of the General Clauses Ac;t would not then apply to allow the previous operation of the provision so omitted or anything duly done or suffered 0 . thereunder. Nor may a legal proceeding in respect of any right or liability be instituted, continued or enforced in respect of rights and liabilities acquired or incurred under the enactment so omitted. In the vast majority of cases, this would cause great public mischief, and the E decision of Fibre Board's case is therefore clearly delivered by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.