Page 50 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

A142 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(6) The appeals and the tagged matters 1 [be placed before a Division
Bench of this Court].”
The Karnataka High Court in its impugned order had held that Rule 5 of
Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could not be
said to be violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India or ultra vires Section 3A
of Central Excise Act, 1944.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in its impugned order had held
that the liability of Production Capacity Based Duty for the period prior to omis-
sion of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules framed thereunder,
would still remain under Section 38A(c) in view of saving provisions contained
in Section 38A(c) of the said Act and the recovery proceedings initiated under
Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001, was sustainable.
REPRESENTED BY : Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan,
Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Anushree Menon,
Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Nisha
Bagchi, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sheena Taqui, Ms. Suvarna
Dubey, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Mrs. Bina Gupta,
Mr. Shantanu Tyagi, Ms. Nandita Chauhan, Mr. S.S.
Shroff, Mr. M.P. Devanath, Mr. Saurabh Mishra,
Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, Mr. Jitendra Mohan
Sharma, Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, M/s. COAC,
Ms. Ruchira Goel, Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi,
Advocates, for the appearing parties.
(1) Area based exemption — Notification No. 27/2005-C.E.,
dated 19-5-2005 amending Notification No. 50/2003-
C.E. substituting words ‘Village Selakui’ in Annex-
ure-II thereof, whether retrospective in nature?
(2) Area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-
C.E. — Unit set up prior to 7-1-2003 but commencing
commercial production after the said date, whether
eligible to exemption?
(3) Area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-
C.E to a unit taking substantial expansion in its in-
stalled capacity, whether can be denied when no such
expansion taken place in respect of second unit locat-
ed in same factory compound?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.
Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari on 27-1-2020 after con-
doning the delay admitted the Civil Appeal Nos. 7186-7204 of 2018 with C.A.
Nos. 10739-10740, 10743-10747, 10752, 10711-10714, 11144-11148 of 2018, C.A. D.
Nos. 33482 & 45040 of 2018, C.A. Nos. 2592-2593 & 3956 of 2019 and C.A. D. No.
13292 of 2019. C.A. Nos. 7186-7204 of 2018 filed by Commissioner of Central Ex-
cise & Service Tax, Meerut against the CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/51137-
____________________________________________________________________
1 Corrected vide Corrigendum No. F.3/6d.B.J./121/2019, dated 21-12-2019.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  50