Constructive res judicata barred reopening the excise valuation dispute and later demanding duty on packing and delivery charges.

Constructive res judicata barred the department from reopening the assessable value dispute and raising a later excise demand on packing and delivery charges after the High Court had already decided the valuation issue between the parties. The earlier writ proceedings had directly addressed what constituted the value of the goods for excise purposes, and the department could have raised the includibility of packing and delivery charges then as an alternative basis. Because Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 32, the same valuation controversy could not be reopened in a subsequent demand. The demand was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department was barred by constructive res judicata from reopening the assessable value and demanding differential duty on packing and delivery charges, after the High Court had already decided the value dispute between the parties.

Analysis: The dispute before the High Court was not confined to a closed past period; it covered the assessable value of the appellant's goods for continuing assessments as well. The earlier writ proceedings had directly raised the question of what constituted the value of the goods for excise purposes, and the department could have urged, as an alternative basis, that packing and delivery charges were also includible. The principle of constructive res judicata, as embodied in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applies to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India. Once the High Court determined the value issue, the department could not reopen the same valuation controversy in a later excise demand.

Conclusion: The department was barred by constructive res judicata, and the demand could not be sustained.

---