CECGR/10/2004 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CE-CUSTOMS GOLD CONTROLL REFERENCE No. 10 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. & CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD-I - Applicant(s) Versus ASPIAF TEXTILE MILLS - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI for Applicant(s) : 1, NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CECGR/10/2004 2/3 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1. This reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Central Excise, raises following question of law. “Whether the levy of penalty and confiscation under Central Excise Act, 1944 was unlawful when Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties Act is expressive enough to make all provisions of Central Excise Act, and Rules applicable, if they are in relation to the levy and collection of duties of excise?” 2. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the applicant. The learned counsel has invited attention to the decision of this Court as well as Apex Court in the following cases; (i) Jaybharat Fabric Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in 2003(2) GLR 999; & (ii) Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 6529 (S.C.) to submit that the view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two decisions. 3. In light of the aforesaid position, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. Suffice it to state that the levy of penalty and confiscation/redemption fine under the provisions CECGR/10/2004 3/3 JUDGMENT of Central Excise Act, 1944 by applying the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Additional Excise Duty Act, is bad in law. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the respondent assessee and against the revenue. 4. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (D.A. MEHTA, J.) (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/