Supreme CourtFull Bench(1995) 01 SC CK 0097

Morarji Goculdas B and W Co. Ltd. and Another vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 17 January 1995 · Citation: (1996) 83 ELT 259 : (1995) 3 SCC 588 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. M. Ahmadii, C.J · S. C. Agrawal, J · N. P. Singh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeals No. 320 Of 1983 With Nos. 321, 521, 528, 530, 532, 537, 2604-05 Of 1983, 2191 Of 1984, 599 Of 1983 And 1964 Of 1984

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 406 words

In this group of cases common questions arise for determination. They are covered by the decision of this Court in J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India . By the said decision this Court upheld as legal and valid the amendments made to Rules 9 and 49. It was argued that if the amendments are given retrospective effect from the date the rules were framed, i.e., from 28-2-1944, the assessees would be required to pay an enormous amount of duty. This Court appreciated the contention that if the duty has to be paid with retrospective effect from 1944 it would undoubtedly cause great hardship to the assessees but concluded that in view of Section 11A of the Act such an apprehension was misplaced. Pointing to Clause (1) of Section 11A it held that it engrafts a rule of limitation of six months and since the proviso to Section 11A is not applicable the demand though it may include even a demand for more than six months must be made within a period of six months from the date of the amendment.

2.

Having considered the facts in this group of cases, in our view, in the light of the observation in J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills it would be appropriate to direct that in cases where notices u/s 11A of the Act have been served and the claims are raised within a period of six months from the relevant date, the Revenue would be entitled to realise the dues. In case of dispute as to whether the notice u/s 11A had been served or not the Assistant Collector will decide the issue. However, in cases where the notices have not been served as yet the Revenue would be entitled to do so within the time limit prescribed by Section 11A of the Act. In either of the aforesaid eventualities orders will not be passed by the authorities without giving an opportunity to the assessee to make representations against the proposed orders. If notices have already been served for the aforesaid purpose the assessees would have eight weeks'' time from today to reply or to make a representation.

3.

The bank guarantees furnished by the assessees shall be made available for realisation of dues, if any, by the Revenue.

4.

The interim orders shall stand modified as above.

5.

The appeals will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.