Section 38A applicable for liabilities under 96ZO & 96ZP before omission

Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128 Sensex slips further and closes at 8773 100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59 Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122 Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32 Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127 CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877 Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117 SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108 exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58 Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57 Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19 HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC Government considering imposition of import duty on steel Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18 Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121 Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45 SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102 service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118 Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114 High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Section 38A applicable for liabilities under 96ZO & 96ZP before omission

AIT News Network

CHENNAI. Deciding the contentious issue involving 39 Steel Units of South India; Justice Abhichandani President of CESTAT on behalf of Larger Bench has ruled vide ruling dated 13^th September AIT-2007-333-CESTAT-LB that the provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inserted by Section 131 of the Finance Act, 2001, are applicable in respect of the obligations and liabilities incurred under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP before they were omitted by Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001, notwithstanding the omission of Section 3A w.e.f. 11.5.2001 by the Finance Act, 2001

In all the appeals, the controversy centered around the effect of the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 11.5.2001 and also the omission of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 w.e.f. 1.3.2001. According to the assessees, since there was no saving clause introduced while omitting Section 3A of the Act, the obligations and liabilities even if incurred during the currency of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP did not survive beyond 11.5.2001, being the date of the omission of Section 3A. According to the assessees, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be invoked in these cases because it applied to “repeal” of an enactment and not to “omission” of a provision of the Act enacted by Parliament.

The Division Bench referred the following two issues for being considered by the Larger Bench :-

“1.Whether, having accepted the position that the protection under Section 38A of the Central Excise Act is available to action taken by the department against them under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP beyond the date of omission of these rules, the assessees are entitled to contend that similar protection under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not available to departmental action taken under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act after the date of its omission.?

2.Whether Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, which was omitted with effect from 11.5.2001, could be considered to have been “repealed” within the meaning of this expression used under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.?”

T H E R U L I N G:

Section 3A empowered the Central Government to charge Excise Duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of notified goods. The goods were to be notified having regard to the nature of the process of manufacture or production, the extent of evasion of duty in regard to such goods and other relevant factors which led the Central Government to form an opinion that it was necessary to do so for safeguarding the interest of the Revenue. On such goods being notified, excise duty was to be levied and collected thereon in accordance with the other provisions of Section 3A. The important provision in this regard as reflected in sub-section (2) of Section 3A was that on the notification being issued under sub-section (1), the Government may, by rules, provide for determination of the annual capacity of production, or factor/s relevant to the ACP, by the Commissioner. The Annual Capacity of Production so determined was to be considered to be the annual production of such goods by such factory. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3A, the duty of excise on such notified goods was required to be levied at the rates notified in the gazette and to be collected in the manner, as may be prescribed under the rules. The operation of Section 3A (1) was totally dependent upon the manner and method of determination of the annual production capacity and the levy and collection provisions of the rules contemplated by the other provisions of Section 3A.
Under Rule 96ZO (1), an obligation was cast upon the manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots and billets to debit an amount calculated @ Rs.750/- per MT at the time of clearance of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel from the factory in the “account-current” maintained by the manufacturer under Rule 173G (1) of the Rules. The manner of calculation of total amount of duty liability was indicated therein. Under Rule 96ZO (1A), it was provided that the goods shall be liable to confiscation and penalty would be imposable on the manufacturer as indicated thereunder, if non-alloy steel ingots and billets were removed without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1). In cases where a manufacturer was having a total furnace capacity of 3 MTs installed in his factory, he was given an option to pay Rs.5 lacs in two instalments as indicated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO.
Provisions similar to Rule 96ZO were made in Rule 96ZP for manufacturers of non-alloy steel hot-rolled products mentioned therein.
In short, the provisions of Rule 96ZO and 96ZP created special obligations and liabilities on the manufacturers of ingots and billets and hot re-rolled products.
Rules 96ZO and 96ZP came to be omitted by Rule 7 of Central Excise (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001, which were notified on 1st March 2001 by Notification No.6/2001-CE (NT) . As stated in the preamble of the notification, these rules were made under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act by the Central Government, “further to amend the Central Excise Rules, 1944, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such amendment”. The amendment was done by way of, inter alia, omitting Rules 96ZO and 96ZP while simultaneously providing a saving clause by incorporating the expression “except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such amendment”.
The Finance Act, 2001 came into force on 11.5.2001 and, by Section 121 thereof, Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was omitted. By Section 131 of the Finance Act, 2001, Section 38A was added in the Central Excise Act. Section 38A dealt with the effect of amendments etc. of rules, notifications, or orders made or issued under the said Act and also of the notifications or orders issued under the rules. It was specifically provided that, where any rule under the Act was amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded, then, unless a different intention appeared, such amendment, repeal, supersession or rescinding shall not, inter alia, affect the previous operation of such rule or affect any obligation or liability incurred under the rules so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded. Penalties, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under or in violation of such rule were also not affected. It was provided that the investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment were also not affected and that such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture, punishment may be imposed as if the rule had not been amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded.
There cannot be a greater all pervasive saving clause than Section 38A. When, admittedly, the obligations and liabilities were incurred under rules 96ZO and 96ZP during their currency when Section 3A was still in force, amendments by omission, repeal etc. contemplated by Section 38A did not affect such liabilities, and the investigation, legal proceeding or remedies in respect thereof were all saved. The word “amended” in Section 38A would encompass amendments by omission also. It may be recalled that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, in paragraph 1899 of the judgment, observing that the Constitution does not define the word “amendment” and that the General Clauses Act also does not define it, held that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act provided that, where any Central Act repeals any enactment, by which the text of any Central Act was amended by express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, the repeal, unless a different intention appears, shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal. It was held that : “ Section 6A shows that “amendment” includes addition, substitution and omission. (emphasis added). Thus, omission being an amendment, Section 38A, which is a saving clause, will apply to omission of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. Therefore, all the obligations and liabilities incurred by the appellants while the rules were in force are not affected by the omission of these rules and can be enforced as contemplated by Section 38A read with the machinery-provisions which continued to operate all throughout. The liabilities were admittedly incurred by the appellants under these rules while Section 3A was in force. The subsequent omission of Section 3A from 11.5.2001 did not obliterate the obligations and liabilities which had already arisen under the rules and were saved because of the saving provisions contained in Section 38A of the Act. The obligations and liabilities had arisen under the said rules as contemplated by Section 3A when it was in force and those very obligations and liabilities subsisted by virtue of the saving provision of Section 38A which was simultaneously introduced while omitting Section 3A. The omission of Section 3A was not done with any retrospective effect and therefore liabilities that had already arisen under the said rules could be enforced by virtue of Section 38A of the Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that Section 3A was “omitted” and not “repealed” making Section 6 of the General Clause Act inapplicable, thereby abrogating the liabilities arising under the rules though protected by Section 38A. Section 38A, in our opinion, clearly governs the field and saves the obligations and liabilities that had already arisen while these rules were in operation so that they could be enforced and implemented as contemplated by Section 38A. It is therefore unnecessary to enter into the controversy surrounding the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act as to the meaning of the word “repeal” on which diverse views have been expressed by the courts.

(Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2007-333-CESTAT-LB)