NDLI: M/s. The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltdner of Central Excise Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1944 provisional assessment Excise Duty Central Excise Act s.11A
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.11A – If applicable to cases of provisional assessment – Appellant, engaged in manufacture of cotton and man-made fabrics, filed writ petitions inter alia seeking direction that excise duty is not payable in respect of yarn processed further in it’s composite mills in the manufacture of fabrics – Also sought interim reliefs – Granted by High Court – Appellant executed bonds in Form B-13 referable to r.9B, 1944 Rules and also furnished Bank guarantee (BG) for equivalent amount of the differential duty in respect of the fabric in question – Interim relief modified on 14.05.85 – Writ petitions disposed of on 10/12.03.93 – Assistant Collector of Central Excise informed the appellant that s.11A was not applicable to the facts of the present case – Appellant asserted that the Show Cause Notice u/s.11A was mandatory – Appellant was called upon to pay Rs.35,92,234.67/- in view of order dtd. 14.05.85 failing which the department was to take steps to enforce the BG – Personal hearing given to the appellant – Demand of excise duty confirmed by Assistant Collector of Excise – Appeals by the appellant before appellate authorities were dismissed – High Court also dismissed the appeal – Held: s.11A as applicable at the relevant time, would apply to cases of recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short levied or short-paid etc. – Case at hand, however, would come within the dispensation predicated by r.9B, 1944 Rules, which deals with provisional assessment to duty – Appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate- for inviting the High Court to pass interim order stipulating that the appellant would execute bonds in Form B-13 referable to r.9B of the Rules and continue to file monthly RT-12 returns from time to time, on which endorsements were made indicating that it is a case of provisional assessment – Appellant cannot now be permitted to urge that it had not submitted to the process of provisional assessment as such for lack of a specific order of the concerned authority in that behalf – Stand taken by the parties as recorded in order dtd. 10/12.03.93, is limited to accepting the fact that if notice is required to be given, it will be given and it will be open to the appellant to file response and the authorities would take decision after giving opportunity – Nothing more can be read into it – Said order in no way extricated the appellant from the process to which it had voluntarily submitted itself at its own volition, namely, u/r.9B of the Rules – Thus, it was not a case of duty not levied or not paid or shortlevied or short-paid – It is certainly not an order to undo the obligation accepted by voluntarily executing the bonds in the prescribed format i.e. Form B-13 referable to r.9B- to treat the process as provisional assessment until the disposal of the writ petitions – Also, authorities later on passed the final order after the disposal of the writ petitions – A priori, they did not violate any direction contained in order dtd. 10/12.03.93 and for having proceeded in accordance with law for the period between 25.05.81 to 13/14.05.85 – Order of the High Court is to be understood in proper perspective and not to give undue advantage to or bestow favour on the appellant and deprive the legitimate State exchequer – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – r.9 r/w r.49 ; r.9B – Excise Duty.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1338
Petitioner	M/s. The Bombay Dyeing And Mfg. Co. Ltdner Of Central Excise
Respondent	The Commissioner Of Central Excise
SCR	[2019] 17 S.C.R. 1057
Judgement Date	2019-12-09
Case Number	5297

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

M/s. The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltdner of Central Excise Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

Please Log-in to view this content

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-i Vs. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Dugar Tetenal India Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Sri Ganganagar Bottling Co.

Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. India Thermit Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

M/s. Kores India Ltd., Chennai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.p. Vs. M/s. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Waluj, Aurangabad, Through Its Vice President (materials) and Ors.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Iv Vs. M/s. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics

Mis. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.

M/s. The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltdner of Central Excise Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

M/s. The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltdner of Central Excise Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-i Vs. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Dugar Tetenal India Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Sri Ganganagar Bottling Co.

Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. India Thermit Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

M/s. Kores India Ltd., Chennai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.p. Vs. M/s. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Waluj, Aurangabad, Through Its Vice President (materials) and Ors.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Iv Vs. M/s. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics

Mis. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.

M/s. The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltdner of Central Excise Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise