IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9565 of 2011
======================================================
Dina Mahabir Re-Rollers Private Ltd.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :Mr. R. Santhanam with
Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocates.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Mrs. Archana Meenakshee with
Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocates.
For the Union of India : Mr. Sahvind Kumar Sharma, CGC.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3. 06-07-2011 By our order dated 22nd June 2011, the petitioner was
allowed to amend the writ petition, to be carried out within one
week from the date of the order. Amendment is not carried out
instead the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit.
The petitioner will carry out the amendment within
one week from today. Failure to carry out the amendment as
directed would amount to refusal of the amendment.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6 th June
2011 made by the Member (CX), Central Board of Excise &
Customs withdrawing certain privileges of CENVAT Credit for
the period from 15th June 2011 to 15th October 2011.
Consequently, the petitioner has also challenged the constitutional
validity of Rule 12CC of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule
12AA of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The challenge is that
the aforesaid Rules are made without the authority of law. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.9565 of 2011 (3) dt.06-07-2011
2
notification issued under the said Rules is also illegal as the
procedure laid down under the notification is contrary to the
principles of natural justice.
The High Court of Orissa has, in the matter of Aryan
Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. [W.P.(C) No. 16132 of 2010 decided on
13th April 2011] set aside the said Rules being ultra vires the
Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Mrs. Archana Meenakshee has appeared for the
respondents. She has submitted that Section 37 of the Act confers
vast powers upon the Central Government to make rules for
carrying out the purposes of the Act. The aforesaid Rules have
been made in exercise of the said power conferred by Section 37
of the Act. Adequate provisions have been made to offer
opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. Neither the said
Rules are ultra vires the Act nor they are contrary to the principles
of natural justice.
Admit.
In view of the challenge to the statutory rules, notice
shall issue to the Attorney General of India.
Pending the petition, the implementation of the order
dated 6th June 2011 shall be subject to the result of the petition.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
Sujit/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)