Statutory first charge under excise law prevails over sick-company protection and applies retroactively to earlier dues.

Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 creates a statutory first charge over the assessee's property for excise duty, penalty, interest and related sums, subject to specified exceptions. That fiscal charge prevails over the general protection available under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, so recovery of central excise dues is not barred by sick-company proceedings. The provision was also treated as declaratory and therefore retroactive, making it applicable to outstanding excise dues even if the underlying demand arose before its insertion. The commentary concludes that the excise recovery claim has priority over the sick industrial company protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred recovery of central excise dues in view of Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to excise dues determined prior to its insertion.

Issue (i): Whether the protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred recovery of central excise dues in view of Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 creates a statutory first charge on the property of the assessee for duty, penalty, interest, and other sums payable under the Act, subject only to the specified statutory exceptions. The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is a general protective enactment for sick industrial companies, but the later special fiscal provision in Section 11E gives overriding effect to the excise dues. The Court held that the cited authorities concerning other statutory settings did not displace the first charge created by Section 11E.

Conclusion: The protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar recovery of central excise dues, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to excise dues determined prior to its insertion.

Analysis: The Court treated Section 11E as declaratory in nature and therefore retroactive in operation. On that basis, the provision was held applicable to outstanding excise dues notwithstanding that the underlying demand related to an earlier period. The absence of an express saving for the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 reinforced the conclusion that the statutory first charge governed the recovery.

Conclusion: Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held applicable to earlier excise dues, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the statutory first charge under the excise law prevailed over the claimed protection under the sick company regime, leaving no basis to restrain recovery of the excise demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A later fiscal statute creating a first charge with overriding effect will prevail over the general suspension of proceedings under the sick company law, and if the provision is declaratory it applies retroactively to prior dues as well.

---