AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, and Sri Nishant Mishra, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Krishna Agrawal, appearing for respondents.
Petitioner is challenging validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2002") and the notices issued by authorities concerned under the aforesaid provision.
At the outset, it is stated that three different High Courts of the Country have already declared Rule 8(3A) of Rules, 2002 ultra vires of Constitution being unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution. Gujarat High Court has struck down the aforesaid Rule in Indsur Global Limited v. Union of India - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833. Madras High Court has done so in Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 489 and Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken the same view in Sandley Industries v. Union of India - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 256.
Learned Additional Solicitor General also stated that in the aforesaid matters, appeals are pending before Apex Court in which notices have been issued but no interim orders have been passed. He also could not advance any submission so as to persuade us to take a different view.
Relying on the aforesaid judgments and for the reasons given therein and on the grounds whereupon the aforesaid provision has been struck down, Rule 8(3A) of Rules, 2002 is declared violative of Article 14 of Constitution and as a result thereof, impugned notices dated 26-10-2010, 24-11-2010 and 20-12-2010 (Annexures 5, 7 and 9 to the writ petition) which have been issued under the aforesaid provision, are also set aside.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.