AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intra vires while dismissing the writ petitions. 3. In course of hearing before us, Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, did not even attempt to assail the reasons assigned by the High Court for up-holding the constitutional validity of section 9-D of the Excise Act. However, Mr. Bagaria argued that by a judgment and order dated 25th April, 2008, this Court had remitted the matters back to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh. In view of the judicial mandate, while deciding the writ petitions afresh on remand, the High Court could not have limited its decision only to the issue relating to vires of section 9-D. The writ petitions, as amended, also raised the issue as to how the essential pre-requisites of section 9-D were breached by the department in the adjudication orders. The effect of the principles and pre-requisites laid down by the High Court for invocation of section 9-D vis-à-vis the appellants' case could not have been left undecided. 4. According to Mr. Bagaria, the principles laid down by the High Court in the impugned judgment ought to have been applied to test the legality and correctness of the impugned actio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... job workers had manufactured deceptively similar versions of certain regular brands of cigarettes showing sale price whereas the same were sold through marketing chain at the higher price of normal brands and that the difference between the two prices was received by the appellants as flow-back through various super wholesale buyers. On 23rd March, 1988 and 29th March, 1988, two show-cause notices were issued by the department to the petitioners raising demands for alleged short payment of excise duty. Such notices primarily relied on the statements of 75 (seventy-five) witnesses to establish the recovery of prices higher than the declared prices and flow back of additional amounts to the appellants. Pursuant to directions of the Bombay High Court, facility of cross-examination was extended in respect of only 29 (twenty-nine) witnesses and most of them, during crossexamination, denied any flow back to the appellants. The remaining statements remained untested but were relied upon by invoking section 9-D of the Excise Act. Grievance of the appellants in the writ petitions was that the parameters of section 9-D had been completely ignored by the authorities. 10. Since the show-ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n December 6, 2006. The common grievance of the petitioners was noted by the High Court in paragraph 3, that they had invoked the writ jurisdiction feeling aggrieved by denial of adequate opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses whose statements were recorded by the excise authorities in the course of investigation. The appellants had argued that the statements of such witnesses, obtained by the excise authorities in the course of their investigation, could only be used if they were given an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. 14. The High Court in its order dated 6th December, 2006 recorded that 2 (two) issues emerged for decision, viz., "1. Whether this Court would be justified in reading down or interpreting Section 9-D of the Act as suggested by counsel for the petitioner company when three appeals involving the validity of the orders passed by the Collector and the CEGAT placing reliance upon Section 9-D of the Act are pending before the Supreme Court? 2. If answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether Section 9-D suffers from any vice of unconstitutionality?" 15. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the High Court, inter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unnecessary. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with costs. 16. The judgment and order dated 6th December, 2006 was carried in appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3187-3189/2008. By an order dated 25th April, 2008, this Court disposed of the appeals by the following order:- "7. The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, did not decide the question of constitutionality of the said provision, nor did it determine the objection of the respondents that no cause of action had arisen therefor. 8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh. We direct accordingly. 9. The appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. 10. However, as these matters are pending for a long time, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of thewrit petitions, filed by the appellants, as expeditiously as possible, preferably without a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. All contentions of the parties sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatement of Case filed on 10th December, 2012, we also note that pursuant to the remand ordered by this Court as above, the Tribunal disposed of the statutory appeals confirming the demands against Kanpur Cigarettes Pvt. Ltd. and J&K Cigarettes. Civil Appeal Nos. 1533-1534 of 2011, carried before this Court from the orders of the Tribunal, were thereafter dismissed in view of inability to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court directing issue of notice subject to deposit of the entire demand amount as confirmed. 22. There was one other appeal filed before this Court but the same too had not been not pursued by the appellants and the job workers. 23. Therefore, as on date of hearing of these civil appeals, there is no lis pending in respect of the concerned demands between the parties. 24. It would be appropriate to note the issues involved in the writ petitions. First, the vires of section 9-D of the Excise Act was under challenge. Secondly, even if section 9-D were intra vires, whether the parameters thereof were completely ignored by the excise authorities. 25. The writ petitions were instituted before the High Court way back in 1992 before any adjudic....