MITTAL ALLOYS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges orders dated 20.05.2009 and 09.10.2003, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CESTAT'), New Delhi, and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, respectively. Counsel for the appellant submits that as Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') was omitted vide Notification No. of 2001 dated 01.03.2001, the order disallowing abatement based upon factors and conditions set out in the above Rule, is illegal. It is further contended that as Rule 96ZO of the Rules was omitted, it cannot be applied to pending proceedings. The obligation of the respondents to grant abatement was to be considered without reference to Rule 96ZO of the Rules. It is further submitted that as the notification omitting Rule 96ZO of the Rules does not contain a saving clause, the impugned orders based upon Rule 96ZO of the Rules are null and void and should, therefore, be set aside. In support of his arguments, counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the following judgments: -

(2.) SHYAMAL Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Police : [1969] 2 SCC 426;

(3.) KRISHNA Processors v. Union of India : 2012 (280) ELT 186 (Guj.).