Invalidation of an unconstitutional amendment automatically revives original statutory provisions to prevent a legal vacuum.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and other appellants filed several miscellaneous appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these appeals

They argued that Section 35G was omitted by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (NTTA), effective from December 28, 2005

The respondents contended that even though the Supreme Court subsequently declared the NTTA unconstitutional in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014), the omitted provisions of the Central Excise Act did not automatically revive, leaving the High Court without jurisdiction

1. Whether the right to appeal before the High Court still exists under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, after its omission by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005

2. What is the legal effect of the judgment in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014), which declared the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, ultra vires, on the previously omitted statutory provisions

Doctrine of Revival as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which holds that if an amending text is invalidated, the original text is revived to prevent a legal vacuum

The jurisdiction to decide substantial questions of law is a core constitutional value vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court that cannot be wholly divested by statute

Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the statutory right of appeal

The court reasoned that the striking down of the NTTA in its entirety by the Supreme Court meant the "edifice" of that Act was removed, rendering its distributive effects (such as the omission of Section 35G) void

if an unconstitutional amendment resulted in the permanent deletion of a valid original provision, it would create a "legal vacuum" never intended by the legislature

The court emphasized that the power to decide substantial questions of law is a fundamental feature of the Indian constitutional scheme

Therefore, when the NTTA—which sought to transfer this power from the High Courts to a Tribunal—was declared unconstitutional, the status quo ante was restored

The court rejected the respondents' reliance on previous interim observations of the High Court, asserting that the revival of the omitted sections is automatic and requires no further legislative action

It concluded that following the Supreme Court's decision in Madras Bar Association, Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, stood automatically revived

The preliminary objections raised by the respondents were rejected

The Court directed the Office to list the appeals separately for hearing on their individual merits under Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC