2013 (10) TMI 394 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund - unjust enrichment - Exemption from Duty Wine Manufacturers - The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification thereby exempting the levy of excise duty to wine manufacturers partly for the year 2001 and remitted the whole of the excise duty Held that - The High Court had therefore concluded that if such an excise duty was collected by the manufacturers by making it a part of the maximum retail price, allowing them to retain it further without allowing it to flow back to the state coffers would amount to unjust-enrichment as noticed by this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . The High Court had not committed any error whatsoever which would call for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - If for any reason the respondents/other authorities had issued notices directing the appellants and other wine manufacturers to deposit the excise duty which according to the respondents was collected by the manufacturers, it was for the manufacturers to file appropriate reply thereby bringing it to their notice that they have not collected such excise duty and the same was also reflected in their books of account - If such a reply was filed by the wine manufacturers, it was for the authority to consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order - If for any reason the appellants were aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the authority considered, they would be at liberty to ventilate their grievances before an appropriate forum.

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition
2. Delay condonation
3. Restoration of Order dated 19.11.2012
4. Exemption of excise duty to wine manufacturers
5. High Court order on excise duty collection
6. Review petitions dismissal
7. High Court judgment challenged

1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition:
The Supreme Court granted permission to file the Special Leave Petition and condoned the delay in filing the petitions. The appeals were directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in specific cases related to excise duty exemption for wine manufacturers in Maharashtra.

2. Restoration of Order dated 19.11.2012:
The application for restoration of the Order dated 19.11.2012 was rejected by the Supreme Court.

3. Exemption of excise duty to wine manufacturers:
The case involved wine manufacturers in Sangli District, Maharashtra, who obtained a license for manufacturing wine. The Government of Maharashtra introduced a policy exempting excise duty for the manufacturers to protect grape-growing farmers and encourage grape production in the state.

4. High Court order on excise duty collection:
The High Court directed wine manufacturers to deposit excise duty collected by them, included in the Maximum Retail Prices of liquor, back to the State Government to prevent unjust enrichment. Review petitions contended non-collection of excise duty, but the High Court maintained manufacturers could represent their case if they had not collected the duty.

5. Review petitions dismissal:
The High Court dismissed review petitions challenging the order to deposit excise duty, stating manufacturers could make representations if they had not collected the duty.

6. High Court judgment challenged:
The aggrieved wine manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order. After hearing arguments and reviewing the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court found no error warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the Civil Appeals.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision but clarified that manufacturers could file appropriate replies if directed to deposit excise duty, with authorities required to consider such responses and issue reasoned orders. Manufacturers were granted the right to challenge any adverse orders before an appropriate forum.