A.K.SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent
Judgment
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This batch of appeals raises questions relating to the demand for interest and penalty under Rules 96ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1994, which were framed in order to effectuate the provisions contained in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Several High Courts have struck down the said Rules relating to penalty as being ultra vires the parent provision and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Most of the appeals in this batch are, therefore, by the Union of India. However, before dealing with the said appeals, it is necessary to first segregate Civil Appeal No.4280 of 2007 which raises a slightly different question from the questions raised in the other appeals and decide it first.
3. The question which arises for decision in the said appeal is the demand, by means of a letter dated 19.8.2005, for payment of interest for delayed payment of central excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. The case of the appellant is that it took a rolling mill on lease for the period from 1997 to 2000 and manufactured rerolled non-alloyed steel products. On 1.9.1997 the compounded lev
M/s Fibre Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi
Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Bombay North
Bhartidasan University v. All-India Council for Technical Education
VVS Sugars v. Government of A.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.