1. Dispute over the effective date for recovery of duty following reclassification and the applicability of Section 11-A of the Act for periods prior to the proposal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1042
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA, APPELLANT
VERSUS
COTSPUN LTD., RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 3304 of 1988
decided on July 30, 1997
When two three-judge bench decisions of the Supreme Court present conflicting views on a significant legal issue, such as the retrospective recovery of duty under Section 11-A after reclassification, the matter should be referred to a larger bench for resolution.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise Act - Section 11-A - Reclassification of goods - Effective date for recovery of duty - Whether duty can be recovered by treating it as short levy for a period of six months prior to the date of show-cause notice, which may extend to a date prior to the date of proposal for reclassification. (Para 1)
(B) Conflict of judicial opinions - Where two decisions rendered by three-Judge Benches take contrary views on a significant question of law, it is appropriate that the matter be heard by a larger Bench. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed concerning the effective date for the recovery of duty following the reclassification of goods. While it was accepted that reclassification is effective prospectively, a dispute arose regarding whether duty could be recovered as a short levy for a period preceding the date of the reclassification proposal.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that there are conflicting views between two decisions rendered by three-Judge Benches regarding the availability of power under Section 11-A for the recovery of duty from a date prior to the proposal of reclassification.
Issues: Whether the power under Section 11-A of the Act is available for the recovery of duty from a date prior to the date of the proposal for reclassification.
Ratio Decidendi: In view of the conflict between two three-Judge Bench decisions on a significant legal question, the matter requires determination by a larger Bench.
Result: Matter referred to a larger Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether duty can be recovered as a short levy under Section 11-A for a period extending prior to the date of proposal for reclassification. (Para 1 )
3. Conflicting decisions by three-judge benches exist regarding the recovery of duty prior to the date of reclassification proposal. (Para 2 )
4. Conflicting decisions by benches of equal strength on a significant legal question necessitate a reference to a larger bench. (Para 2 )
5. The matter is referred to a larger bench for determination. (Para 2 , 4 )
6. Can duty be recovered under Section 11-A for a period prior to the proposal for reclassification?
There are conflicting judicial views; some benches held that Section 11-A cannot be used for recovery prior to the proposal date, while another three-judge bench held a contrary view. (Para 2 )
7. What is the procedure when two benches of equal strength provide conflicting rulings on a significant legal issue?
When such a conflict exists, especially if a previous ruling was not considered by the subsequent bench, the case is referred to a larger bench for resolution. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. The only question involved for decision in this appeal pertains to the effective date from which the reclassification made becomes effective for the purpose of recovery of the duty. There is no controversy that the reclassification is effective prospectively as consistently held by this Court. The other aspect, however, is about the date from which, on reclassification, the duty can be recovered, i.e., whether it can be recovered by treating it as short levy under Section 11-A of the Act for a period of six months prior to the date of show-cause notice which may extend to a date prior to the date of proposal for the reclassification.
2. In view of the fact that the respondent-assessee is unrepresented, we requested Shri V. Sridharan to appear as amicus curiae. The learned amicus curiae has, after studying the point, placed before us a catena of decisions of this Court, mostly by two-Judge Benches and two decisions by three-Judge Benches. The two decisions rendered by three-Judge Benches are CCE v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. ((1991) 51 ELT A36) and Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs & Central Excise. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 429 : (1995) 76 ELT 499). The view taken in Indian Oxygen ((1991) 51 ELT A36) is in favour of the assessee suggesting that the power under Section 11-A is not available for recovery of duty from a date prior to the date of proposal of reclassification. Same is the view taken recently by a two-Judge Bench in CCE v. Bhiwani Textile Mills. ((1997) 10 SCC 522 : (1996) 88 ELT 639). However, the view taken by another three-Judge Bench in Ballarpur (1995 Supp (3) SCC 429 : (1995) 76 ELT 499) appears to be contrary. It also appears that the earlier three-Judge Bench decision in Indian Oxygen ((1991) 51 ELT A36) was not brought to the notice of the latter three-Judge Bench which decided Ballarpur case. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 429 : (1995) 76 ELT 499). In such a situation and in view of the significance of the question, it would be appropriate that this appeal, which involves for decision this question, is heard by a larger Bench.
3. We request also Shri Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate to appear in this matter as amicus curiae.
4. Place the papers before Honble Chief Justice for orders.
Court Masters
