Supreme Court of India
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Baroda Pharmaceuticals Limited on 25 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(87)ECC706, 2003(153)ELT498(SC), (2003)11SCC688, AIRONLINE 2003 SC 107, (2003) 153 ELT 498 2003 (11) SCC 688, 2003 (11) SCC 688
Bench: S.S.M. Quadri, Ashok Bhan
ORDER
1. These appeals, by the Revenue, by special leave, are directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos. 3142 and 2768 of 1990.
2. Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned Senior Counsel for the assessee.
3. The respondent is an S.S.I. unit and manufactures patent and pro-praetory medicines. It also manufactures medicines of loan licencees, M/s. Contrast Remedies and M/s. Celestial Pharma Private Limited. The respondent was enjoying exemption under Notification No. 175 of 1986, as amended by Notification No. 223 of 1987, dated 22nd September, 1987. On March 10, 1987, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range VI, Baroda, issued notice to the respondent stating that as the loan licencees are not entitled to exemption under the said notification, why the differential duty between the concessional rate of duty and the tariff rate of duty payable in respect of the goods of M/s. Contrast Remedies should not be recovered from it? The Assistant Collector, the adjudicating authority, by his order dated July 19, 1989 confirmed the demand. The respondent challenged the said order in the afore-mentioned applications before the High Court.
4. A perusal of the order under challenge shows that the High Court allowed the special civil applications relying on the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in Indica Laboratories Private Limited v. Union of India [1990 (50) E.L.T. 210 (Guj.)]. The question which the High Court was called upon to decide was: whether on the grounds mentioned, differential duty could be recovered from the respondent. The questions decided in the judgment, referred to above, were different. Inasmuch as the High Court did not give any reason of its own in allowing the said applications, We have no option but to set aside the order under challenge.
5. The next question that arises is, what course of action should be directed to be followed by the respondent. We are of the view that as the order of the Assistant Collector, impugned in the applications, is an appealable order, the appropriate course would be to grant reasonable time to the respondent to file an appeal against that order and we, accordingly, grant six weeks' time from today to the respondent to file an appeal before the jurisdictional Collector (Appeals). If an appeal is filed within a period of six weeks from today, it shall be entertained and decided on merits in accordance with law.
6. The orders under challenge are set aside and the civil appeals are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.