UNION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHNA PROCESSORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the Gujarat High Court, Ambuja Synthetics Mills (assessee) had challenged the validity of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), which reads as under:

(2.) As can be seen from the above quoted impugned sub-rule, penalty equal to an amount outstanding at the end of the stipulated period was leviable. The impugned Rule was challenged as ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the Rule making authority. By judgment in the case of Ambuja Synsthetic Mills v. Union of India reported in 2004 175 ELT 85, the Gujarat High Court read down the Rule holding that it was not mandatory . We quote hereinbelow Para 9 of the said judgment which reads as under:

(3.) Following the said decision numerous matters came to be disposed of both, by the High Court and the Tribunal.