PARAGON STEELS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOARD OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in these writ petitions are same and therefore these cases were heard and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) PETITIONERS are Assessees under the Central Excise and Salt Act. Admittedly duty payable by the Petitioners were paid by them belatedly. In such cases, Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules framed under Section 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944, provides that the defaulter is liable for penalty. Accordingly, penalty was imposed on the Petitioners by Ext.P1 orders. Appeals filed against Ext.P1 were disposed of by the appellate authority upholding penalty. However,Tribunal reduced the penalty, which was confirmed by this Court in the appeals filed by the department. In the appeals filed by the Department, Apex Court passed Ext.P5 orders allowing the appeals following its earlier judgment in U.O.I. v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors. : (2008(13) SCALE 233). However, it was clarified that the order will not stand in the way of the Assessee challenging the vires of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules. It is taking advantage of the said liberty that these writ petitions have been filed challenging the vires of the said rules.

(3.) IT is settled position of law that there is no equity in tax. Admittedly, Rule has been framed by the Central Government exercising its powers under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The statute does not require that any discretionary power should be confirmed on the officer. If that be so, it cannot be said that the rule is vitiated for any of the grounds available to invalidate a piece of subordinate legislation. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention raised.