COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA vs. M/S. KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8609/2019Supreme Court[2019] 14 S.C.R. 57914 November 2019Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN20 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia (Appellant) initiated proceedings against M/s. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. (Respondent) for allegedly manufacturing Foots Oil and Pressed Wax without paying excise duty. The Respondent filed a writ petition challenging the department's authority, claiming no manufacturing activity occurred. The High Court directed the department to first decide the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction. An internal order dated March 15, 2006, was issued, deciding the preliminary objection in favour of the department. The Respondent appealed this internal order, which was allowed. The Appellant then appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed their appeal. The present appeal is before the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the excise law is a complete code and it is generally inappropriate for a writ court to entertain a petition against a mere show cause notice. Objections should be raised before the issuing authority. The Court found that the internal order dated March 15, 2006, was not a determination under Section 11A(10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but rather an opinion formed in compliance with the High Court's direction. Therefore, it was not an appealable order. The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal erred in appreciating this distinction. The Court set aside the appellate order and the order under appeal, directing that proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated March 21, 2006, be taken to their logical conclusion. The Respondent was granted three weeks to file its response to the show cause notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition against the mere issuance of a show cause notice, particularly when excise law is a complete code. - Assessee's Argument: Not recorded. - Revenue's Argument: Excise law is a complete code, and writ petitions should not be entertained against mere show cause notices. Objections should be raised before the issuing authority first. 2. Whether the internal order dated March 15, 2006, deciding the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, was an appealable order under the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Assessee's Argument: The internal order was appealable, as it was communicated to them. - Revenue's Argument: The internal order was not a determination under Section 11A(10) and was merely issued in compliance with the High Court's direction. Therefore, it was not appealable, and the appeal was premature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3,Section 4,Section 6,Section 11A,Section 35L,Section 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B C D E F G H 579 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA v. M/S. KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 8609 of 2019) NOVEMBER 14, 2019 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.] Central Excise Act, 1944 – ss.3, 4, 6, 11A and 35L – Search conducted at the registered office and the factory premises of the Respondent by the officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate on the basis that the Respondent manufactured Foots Oil, Pressed Wax etc. without observing the mandatory procedure and clearing excise duty – Writ petition filed by the Respondent inter alia objecting that the department had no authority to proceed in the matter as no manufacturing activity was undertaken – Direction to decide the preliminary objection first – Show Cause Notice issued by the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia, inter alia stating that after considering the preliminary objection, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise decided to proceed in the matter and called upon the respondent to show cause as to why inter alia the amount specified in the notice be not demanded – Respondent filed writ petition stating that the notice was issued without deciding the preliminary objection – Di

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 3

All 264 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →