UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four applications have been filed by the Union of India praying for vacating the interim orders passed in the connected writ petitions. The facts and the issue involved being the same, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Before filing the present four writ petitions, four other writ petitions being WP(C) No. 2921/2004; WP(C) No. 3075/2004; WP(C) No. 3076/2004 and WP(C) No. 3077/2004 were filed by the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of orders of recovery passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise/Assistant Commissioner of Excise and the orders of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Excise refusing to entertain the appeals preferred against the said orders unless the conditions precedent of depositing the amounts in question is fulfilled as provided for under Section 35 F of the Excise Act, 1944. The orders of recovery were passed pursuant to the retrospective amendment of the provisions relating to exemptions from excise duty to the products with the manufacturing of which the petitioners are engaged. Even prior to that, amendment was carried out to the provision, which excluded the products of the petitioners. The writ petitioners unsuccessfully challenged that, by filing writ petitions. However, on appeal (writ appeals), the decision of the learned Single Judge was reversed holding that it was impermissible to withdraw the benefits. By the judgment, adjustment and refund of duty paid pursuant to the withdrawal of benefits were provided. The judgment of the Division Bench in the writ appeals has since been stayed by the Supreme Court on appeals preferred by the Union of India.

(3.) In the abovementioned earlier four writ petitions, the petitioners apart from making challenge to the consequential orders of recovery and refusal to entertain the appeals unless the pre-condition of depositing the amount is fulfilled, also put a challenge to the vires of Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 by which the retrospective amendments to the provision of exemption of tax/duty was brought. During the course of motion hearing of the said writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on being questioned as to what would survive once the interim prayer relating to the impugned orders dated 6.6.2003 and 31.3.2004 in WP(C) No. 2921/2004 and other such orders passed in other three writ petitions were decided either way, submitted rather argued for final disposal of the matter. However, in view of the challenge put to Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003, the writ petition could not have been decided finally and the matters would have been confined to consideration of the interim prayers only and on being pointed out the same, learned counsel for the petitioner took time for instruction from his clients/petitioners and the instruction was submitted on a later date that the petitioners would not pursue the challenge to Section 154 and their writ petitions would confine only to the consequential orders dated 6.6.2003 and 31.3.2004 issued pursuant to section 154. However, a liberty was sought for to make independent challenge to Section 154 of the Act.