M/S. Sri Sivasakthi Auto v. Union Of India,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.11.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN M/s. Sri Sivasakthi Auto Ancillaries Madras Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By its Director - D.Ganeshan No.50/1, Gangaiamman Koil Street Karapakkam Village, Chennai - 600 097.
..
Petitioner Vs.
1. Union of India Rep. By the Secretary to Government Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Perungudi Division, 4th Floor, EVR Periyar Building 690, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai - 600 035.
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai - IV Commissionerate 5th Floor, MHU Complex 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai - 600 035.
..
Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of declaration, declaring the provisions under 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, introduced vide Notification No.4/2002-C.E (N.T) dated 01.03.2002, modified vide Notification No.17/2005-C.E (N.T) dated 31.03.2005 and substituted vide
Notification No.13/2006 C.E (N.T) dated 01.06.2006 and Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, introduced vide Notification No.12/2003 C.E.(N.T) dated 01.03.2003 as ultra vires of the Constitution of India, void ab initio, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently forbear the second respondent from taking action against the petitioner vide C.No.IV/11/13/2013 dated 13.01.2015 issued under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. For the Petitioner :
Mr.S.Santhosh for Mr.S.Sivaramakrishnan For the Respondents :
Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C. SARAVANAN, J.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as inserted vide Notification No.4/2002-C.E (N.T) dated 01.03.2002 and consequently substituted vide Notification No.12/2003 C.E.(N.T) dated 01.03.2003 .
2. The substituted Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, reads as under:- "(4) The provisions of Section 11 of the Act shall be applicable for recovery of the duty as assessed under Rule 6 and the interest under sub-Rule (3) in the same manner as they are applicable for recovery of any duty or other sums payable to the Central Government."
3. Reading of the above provision indicates that it is a generic provision, which not only applies to the duty assessed under Rule 6, but also the interest under sub-Rule (3), as also sub-Rule (3A) by virtue of the subsequent amendment to the aforesaid Rule.
4. This Court has declared Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as ultra vires in the case of Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Union of India1. Since the provision under challenge is a generic provision, applicable to all the provisions mentioned above, it cannot be declared as ultra vires Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Consequently, we find no merits in the challenge to the impugned Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed. (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 20.11.2024 drm 1 2015 (323) E.L.T. 489 (Mad.)
To:
1. The Secretary to Government Union of India Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Perungudi Division, 4th Floor, EVR Periyar Building 690, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai - 600 035.
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai - IV Commissionerate 5th Floor, MHU Complex 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai - 600 035.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND C. SARAVANAN , J.
(drm) 20.11.2024