Page 124 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

346 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

frame regulations in supersession of the previous ones, having regard to the
prevalent circumstances. Thus, reducing the number of attempts to clear the oral
examination for the candidates who have passed the written examination, in our
view, cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. In absence of any arbitrariness and any cogent legal proposition ad-
vanced to impugn the notifications, except for raising the plea that a vested right
cannot be taken away, which we have rejected in the preceding paragraphs, we
find no ground whatsoever to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
11. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Qadri, Learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner, which have been extracted above have no application to the
facts of the present case. As discussed above, the proposition of law relating to
protection of “vested rights” or “accrued rights”, is well recognized, however
accrual or vesting of such rights is a sine qua non for the Courts to protect the
same. The factual position in each of the cases cited by Mr. Qadri is distinguisha-
ble. The same have been passed in the context of a right flowing under the rele-
vant rules which were to be sought to be altered with effect from an anterior
date, thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that
time. The Courts have looked down upon the retrospective operation of the
amendments that take away a benefit which is already available to a person.
However in the present case, no right whatsoever has accrued in favour of the
petitioner that permits him to avail seven attempts to crack the examination in
question, and two chances to appear in the interview, even though the Rules
have changed. Examinations held under the Regulations of 2018 cannot be treat-
ed as those undertaken under the 2013 Regulations. They are strictly governed
by their own regulations. The 2018 Regulations are prospective in their nature
and have been applied prospectively.
12. In view of aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present peti-
tion. Accordingly the present petition and the pending application are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 346 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. Brahmbhatt and Dr. A.P. Thaker, JJ.
RAJHANS IMPEX PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
R/Special Civil Application No. 12550 of 2017 with R/S.C.A. Nos.12708 and 13222
of 2017, decided on 9-1-2020
Demand and Penalty - Clearances made to 100% EOU on payment of
duty - Clearance made against Advance Authorization and duty debited in
Cenvat - Excise duty refunded by DGFT by way of Terminal Excise Duty
(TED) for the material supplied to 100% EOU (deemed export) - DGFT alone
can take action against petitioners for breach of condition of Advance Author-
ization or deemed export or for wrongful taking TED - Also certain transac-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  124