The principle of finality in judicial decisions ensures that parties are not subjected to reopened judgments based on subsequent changes in law, safeguarding the integrity of legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Somadder, CJ.

This is a statutory appeal arising from a final order dated 14^th September, 2023, passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, (Regional Bench - Court No. 1) in Excise Appeal No. 75147 of 2023 (M/s Alkem Health Science vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate) along with Excise Appeal No. 75148 of 2023 (M/s Alkem Laboratories Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate).

This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate, under section 35G of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944 (hereinafter referred to “the Act of 1944”).

By the impugned final order, the learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the two appeals referred above in the following manner:—

“8. We find that refund claims were sanctioned in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SRD Nutrients (supra) and thereafter the decision of the SRD Nutrients (supra) was over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Unicorn Industries (supra), it does not mean that at the time of sanctioning of refund claim, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SRD Nutrients was valid. As the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SRD Nutrients (supra) during the relevant period holding the field, in that circumstances, the refund claims were rightly sanctioned to the appellants as held by the Hon’ble High Courts in the above- cited decisions namely Tripura Ispat vs. UOI (supra), therefore, we hold that the show cause notice issued to the appellant are not sustainable.

9. Accordingly, the impugned orders are bad in law. Accordingly, the same are set aside.

In the result, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.”

The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the appellant submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to and relied upon by the authority which sanctioned the refund claims of the respondent, being the case of M/s SRD Nutrients Private Limited. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati , [ (2018) 1 SCC 105 ] was subsequently overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India and others reported in [ (2020) 3 SCC 492 ]. As such, she submits that the powers of the concerned authority to invoke the provisions of section 11A of the Act of 1944, for recovery of duty erroneously refunded, would have been very much permissible in the facts of the instant case.

When asked by this Court as to when the M/s Unicorn Industries judgment came into force, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that it came into force at a subsequent date, that is, after the refund claims were sanctioned by the competent authority.

The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration in the facts of the instant case is whether the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in M/s Unicorn Industries (supra) overruling the judgment of M/s SRD Nutrients (supra) will be applicable in the facts of the instant case.

Before we proceed to answer this question, we need to take notice of section 11A of the Act of 1944, which reads as follows:—

“11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.— (1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,—(a) the Central Excise Officer shall, within two years from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or pa