Page 118 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

340 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

benefit of the decision in M/s Ramco Cements Ltd. can be extended only to
those dealers that are party to the decision. This stand is unacceptable in so
far as the decision of this Court as well as other High Courts, one of which
has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, are decisions in rem, applicable
to all dealers that seek benefit thereunder, of course, in accordance with
law.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of the order passed
above, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, necessary action to be
taken by the department, forthwith. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Pe-
tition is closed.’
10. In the light of the narrative supra and in the light of the trajectory,
which this matter has taken at the admission stage, it follows as a natural sequi-
tur that the instant writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, necessary action
has to be taken by the Revenue/Department/respondents forthwith which in
any case shall not be more than 5 working days from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
11. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 340 (Del.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi and Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
MANISH RISHISHWAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

W.P. (C) No. 8076 of 2019 & C.M. No. 33390 of 2019, decided on 16-1-2020
Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Constitutional validity
thereof - Vested right on attempts to pass examination - Petitioner pleading
that by reducing number of attempts in said Regulations that an applicant
could make to clear written as well as oral examination compared to erstwhile
Customs Broker Regulations, 2013, his vested right has been taken away and
hence 2018 Regulations are unconstitutional - HELD : Undisputedly, aforesaid
Regulations have been framed by C.B.I. & C. in terms of powers conferred up-
on it under Customs Act, 1962 - These Regulations are prospective in nature
and examinations held under them cannot be treated as those undertaken un-
der erstwhile 2013 Regulations - Merely because attempt to clear written exam-
ination have been reduced to six from seven and that of clearing interview
from two to one under 2018 Regulations not meaning that earlier Regulations
of 2013 had conferred any vested right which could never be amended or
changed - If plea of petitioner is accepted then no Rule/Regulation could ever
be amended/modified - No law can be declared ultra vires simply because cer-
tain clauses which existed earlier have been modified - In instant case peti-
tioner could not clear written examination under 2013 Regulations even after 5
attempts - Having cleared written examination on his sixth attempt under new
Regulations and having failed in oral interview on his first attempt thereun-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  118