Learned Solicitor General appearing for the Appellant submitted that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. The charge against the Respondent was of evasion of excise duty Under Section 9(1)(b) which remains unamended. The evasion was on account of the Respondent having taken credit without following the procedure Under Rule 56A. By omission of the said Rule, the charge did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Alternatively, it was submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied to omission which was also repeal. It also applies to a Rule. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Fibre Boards Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore MANU/SC/0848/2015 : (2015) 10 SCC 333, Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise MANU/SC/1341/2015 : (2016) 3 SCC 643. It was also submitted that retrospective amendment has been made to the Act by the Finance Act, 2001 making it clear that actions taken Under a Rule will not lapse even if the Rule is omitted. The Explanation applied only to future action and not to continuing action.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2017
Decided On: 12.09.2017
Chandpaklal Ramanlal Shah and Ors. Vs.Reliance Industries Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4964
