[2017] 14 S.C.R. 554 A CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. v. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. (Criminal Appeal No. 1045of2017) B SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LA LIT, J.J.J Central Excise Rules. 1944 - n: 56A. 52A. 173G. 9(2) and 173 (Q)- Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944-ss.9.11-A - Complaint C filed by the appellant alleging the commission of offence u/s.9 of the Act rlw. n: 52A. 56A. 173G and 173(Q) rlw. s.Il-A of the Act-Late1; d6A was omitted by a notification - On that basis. re~pondent .filed an application for discharge. hut the same was rejected and charge was framed by the trial Court - Re.1pondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition - High Court held that since D r.56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause. proceedings could not conti1111e u11d quashed the charge framed by the trial Court - On appeal, held: The chmge against the re~pondent is of evasion of duty - The ingredient of the offence is the evasion -The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge - The prosecution cannot beE deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence - In this view of the matte1; there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of 1:56A having been omitted - Order of trial Court restored - General Clauses Act. 1897 - s.6 - Finance Act. 2001 - Explanation to s.132. F Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The charge against the respondent is of evasion of duty. The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deprived of G opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. ln this view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Ruic 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 having been omitted. [Para 6] [557-E-F] H 554 CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. v. RELIANCE 555 INDUSTRIES LTD. Raya/a Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, A New Delhi (1969) 2 SCC 412 : (1970] ·1 SCR 639; Kohlapur .Cane Sugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India . (2000) 2 SCC 536 : 12000] 1 SCR 518; Fibre Board~ Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2015) 10 SCC 333 : [2015] 8 SCR 906; B Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills versus Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643 : (2015] 12 SCR 332; Simholi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 (205) ELT 141; Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 77 - referred to. c Case Law Reference [1970] 1 SCR 639 referred to Para3 12000] 1 SCR' 518 referred to Para3 (2015] 8 SCR 906 referred to Para4 D 12015] l2 SCR 332 referred to Para4 2006 (205) ELT 141 · .referred to Para4 1995 (75) ELT 77 referred to Para4 CRIMJNALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. E 1045 of2017. ·

From the Judgment and Order dated 17. l 0.2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision No. 192 of2014 . . Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Disha Yaish and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs., F for the Appellants. Sh yam Divan, Sr. Adv., Jaydeep Patel; K. R. Sasiprabhu, Ashwin Dave, Ms. Shilpa Balani, Vishnu Sharma, Udayaditya Banerjee, Somiran Sharma and Biju Raman, Advs., for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. l. This appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 17"' October, 2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 2014. Thereby, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court .dated 22"" March, 2013 and discharged the respondent in Criminal Case H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A No.441 of 1987 under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act)read with Rules 52A, 56A, 173G, 9(2) and 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) read with Section 11-A of the Act.

2. Complaint dated 4'h August, 1987 was filed by the appellant in B his capacity as Superintendent, Central Excise, Group-II, Central Excise Collectorate, Hqrs. Jivabha Mens ion, Ahmedabad alleging commission of offence mentioned in the complaint. The trial Magistrate summoned the accused. On 20'h May, 1994, Rule 56A was omitted by a notification. On that basis, the respondent filed an application for discharge. The c application was rejected and charge was framed by the trial Magistrate vidc order dated 22 11 <1 March, 2013 as follows : "A charge is framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with violation ofRule 52(A), 56(A), I 73(G), 9(2) of Central Excise Rules and Rule 173(Q) read with Section ll(A) of the D Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944."

3. The respondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition. The High Court has allowed the revision petition. It was held that since Ruic 56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause, proceedings could not continue. Referring to Section 38A added to the E Act by the Finance Act, 2001, it was observed that Explanation to Section 132 of the Finance Act, 200 I.• laid down that an act or omission, which would not have been punishable but for the said section, will not be punishable. It was also observed that omission of the provision was not at par with repeal and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to repeal of a rule. Reliance was placed on Raya/a F Corporation {P) Ltd. versus Director of E11forceme11t, New Delhi1 and Kohlapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. versus U11io11 ofImfia2• Hence th is appeal. 4. Learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant submitted G that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. The charge against the respondent was of evasion of excise duty under Section 9(l)(b) which remains unamended. The evasion was on account of the respondent having taken credit without following the procedure under Ruic 56A. By omission of the said Rule, the charge did not suffer from any legal 1 (1969)1 SCC412 H '12000) 2 sec 536 CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. v. RELIANCE . 557 INDUSTRIES LTD: [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

infirmity. Alternatively, it was-submitted that Section 6 of the General A 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 versu.\'. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore3, Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills.versus Commissioner of Central Excise4. It was also submitted that retrospective amendment B 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. Reliance has been placed on a full Bench Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Simholi Sugar Mills Ltd. versus Union of lndia5 It was also submitted that penalty for wrongly taking credit was upheld by the C . Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd. i•ersus CCEC., which has attained finality. 5. Opposing the above submissions, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply omission and applied only to repeal. It did not apply to a rule D and applied only to an Act or Regulation as held in Kohlapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. (supra). He further submitted that in view of Explanation to Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001, prosecution could not continue as there was no retrospective validation of the prosecution.

6. It is not necessary to go into all the rival contentions. In our E view, the matter can be decided on a short point. The charge against the respondent is of evasion of duty. The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deptjved of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. In this F view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Rule 56A having been omitted. ' 7. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court. Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed. 'c201s) 10 sec 333 '(2016) 3 sec 643 '2006 (205) ELT 141 " 1995 (75) ELT 77

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 554 A CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. v. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. (Criminal Appeal No. 1045of2017) B SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LA LIT, J.J.J Central Excise Rules. 1944 - n: 56A. 52A. 173G. 9(2) and 173 (Q)- Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944-ss.9.11-A - Complaint C filed by the appellant alleging the commission of offence u/s.9 of the Act rlw. n: 52A. 56A. 173G and 173(Q) rlw. s.Il-A of the Act-Late1; d6A was omitted by a notification - On that basis. re~pondent .filed an application for discharge. hut the same was rejected and charge was framed by the trial Court - Re.1pondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition - High Court held that since D r.56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause. proceedings could not conti1111e u11d quashed the charge framed by the trial Court - On appeal, held: The chmge against the re~pondent is of evasion of duty - The ingredient of the offence is the evasion -The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge - The prosecution cannot beE deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence - In this view of the matte1; there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of 1:56A having been omitted - Order of trial Court restored - General Clauses Act. 1897 - s.6 - Finance Act. 2001 - Explanation to s.132. F Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The charge against the respondent is of evasion of duty. The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deprived of G opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. ln this view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Ruic 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 having been omitted. [Para 6] [557-E-F] H 554 CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. v. RELIANCE 555 INDUSTRIES LTD. Raya/a Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, A New Delhi (1969) 2 SCC 412 : (1970] ·1 SCR 639; Kohlapur .Cane Sugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India . (2000) 2 SCC 536 : 12000] 1 SCR 518; Fibre Board~ Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2015) 10 SCC 333 : [2015] 8 SCR 906; B Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills versus Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643 : (2015] 12 SCR 332; Simholi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 (205) ELT 141; Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 77 - referred to. c Case Law Reference [1970] 1 SCR 639 referred to Para3 12000] 1 SCR' 518 referred to Para3 (2015] 8 SCR 906 referred to Para4 D 12015] l2 SCR 332 referred to Para4 2006 (205) ELT 141 · .referred to Para4 1995 (75) ELT 77 referred to Para4 CRIMJNALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. E 1045 of2017. ·

From the Judgment and Order dated 17. l 0.2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision No. 192 of2014 . . Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Disha Yaish and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs., F for the Appellants. Sh yam Divan, Sr. Adv., Jaydeep Patel; K. R. Sasiprabhu, Ashwin Dave, Ms. Shilpa Balani, Vishnu Sharma, Udayaditya Banerjee, Somiran Sharma and Biju Raman, Advs., for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. l. This appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 17"' October, 2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 2014. Thereby, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court .dated 22"" March, 2013 and discharged the respondent in Criminal Case H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A No.441 of 1987 under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act)read with Rules 52A, 56A, 173G, 9(2) and 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) read with Section 11-A of the Act.

2. Complaint dated 4'h August, 1987 was filed by the appellant in B his capacity as Superintendent, Central Excise, Group-II, Central Excise Collectorate, Hqrs. Jivabha Mens ion, Ahmedabad alleging commission of offence mentioned in the complaint. The trial Magistrate summoned the accused. On 20'h May, 1994, Rule 56A was omitted by a notification. On that basis, the respondent filed an application for discharge. The c application was rejected and charge was framed by the trial Magistrate vidc order dated 22 11 <1 March, 2013 as follows : "A charge is framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with violation ofRule 52(A), 56(A), I 73(G), 9(2) of Central Excise Rules and Rule 173(Q) read with Section ll(A) of the D Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944."

3. The respondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition. The High Court has allowed the revision petition. It was held that since Ruic 56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause, proceedings could not continue. Referring to Section 38A added to the E Act by the Finance Act, 2001, it was observed that Explanation to Section 132 of the Finance Act, 200 I.• laid down that an act or omission, which would not have been punishable but for the said section, will not be punishable. It was also observed that omission of the provision was not at par with repeal and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to repeal of a rule. Reliance was placed on Raya/a F Corporation {P) Ltd. versus Director of E11forceme11t, New Delhi1 and Kohlapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. versus U11io11 ofImfia2• Hence th is appeal. 4. Learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant submitted G that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. The charge against the respondent was of evasion of excise duty under Section 9(l)(b) which remains unamended. The evasion was on account of the respondent having taken credit without following the procedure under Ruic 56A. By omission of the said Rule, the charge did not suffer from any legal 1 (1969)1 SCC412 H '12000) 2 sec 536 CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. v. RELIANCE . 557 INDUSTRIES LTD: [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

infirmity. Alternatively, it was-submitted that Section 6 of the General A 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 versu.\'. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore3, Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills.versus Commissioner of Central Excise4. It was also submitted that retrospective amendment B 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. Reliance has been placed on a full Bench Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Simholi Sugar Mills Ltd. versus Union of lndia5 It was also submitted that penalty for wrongly taking credit was upheld by the C . Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd. i•ersus CCEC., which has attained finality. 5. Opposing the above submissions, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply omission and applied only to repeal. It did not apply to a rule D and applied only to an Act or Regulation as held in Kohlapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. (supra). He further submitted that in view of Explanation to Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001, prosecution could not continue as there was no retrospective validation of the prosecution.

6. It is not necessary to go into all the rival contentions. In our E view, the matter can be decided on a short point. The charge against the respondent is of evasion of duty. The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deptjved of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. In this F view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Rule 56A having been omitted. ' 7. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court. Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed. 'c201s) 10 sec 333 '(2016) 3 sec 643 '2006 (205) ELT 141 " 1995 (75) ELT 77