Power of Central Government to make rules

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Rajasthan Textile Mills vs U. O. I.

   Supreme Court of India 09 Oct 2015 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In the scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 2002, a manufacturer/exporter is entitled to claim rebate of both the excise duty paid on the final excisable goods exported as well as the excise duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of such goods. The word 'OR' in Rule 18, which prima facie appears disjunctive, must be interpreted as 'AND' (conjunctive) to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as evidenced by: (a) the consistent historical practice since the 1944 Rules of providing dual relief from duties on both final and intermediate products for exports; (b) the comparative scheme of Rules 18 and 19 which both aim to neutralize the burden of internal levies on exported goods; (c) the Government's own practice in exercising its rule-making power by issuing separate notifications for rebate on final goods and input materials, and prescribing forms that contemplate claiming both rebates; and (d) the principle of contemporanea expositio and executive construction, whereby the interpretation given by the rule-maker itself is ordinarily binding. To restrict rebate to only one duty would produce an anomalous and absurd result contrary to the purpose of export promotion and would constitute arbitrary discrimination.

   On this section: Confers powers on Central Government to frame rules under the Act. The Court noted that Central Excise Rules, 2002 were framed under this section.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Aeon's Construction Products LTD vs Commnr. of Central Excise, Chennai

   Supreme Court of India 20 Apr 2005 Persuasive (Other HC) - While binding as Supreme Court decision, limited applica

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   After the amendment to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 effective from 14.5.1992, any Central Excise Officer including a Superintendent has statutory jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices in cases involving allegations of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of fact. Board Circulars prescribing which officer should issue such notices are administrative directions for allocation of work and do not restrict the jurisdiction conferred by the Act. Non-compliance with such Circulars does not invalidate the show-cause notice or the adjudication order, and the Board has no power to curtail the jurisdiction vested in Central Excise Officers by the Act. Further, in the absence of evidence that paving blocks are used in pre-fabricated buildings, they cannot qualify for Tariff Head 6807.20 and must be classified under Tariff Head 6807.90 attracting duty.

   On this section: Provides rule-making power to Central Government; Court held this cannot be used to whittle down jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers as granted by the Act

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.