2015 (4) TMI 1252 - SC - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - opportunity of being heard - principles of natural justice - Held that - The case set up in the writ petition was entirely different from the one which is sought to be projected before us at the time of arguments which cannot be permitted - the High Court while allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 and dismissing the writ petition of the appellant had given an opportunity to the Learned Counsel to file civil suit. Civil Suit was in fact filed but the same was dismissed some time in the year 2011 - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over payment of Excise duty and Customs duty on cranes supplied on hiring basis for a project in Bangladesh.
2. Discharge of bond by the Excise Department and obligation to pay import duty.
3. Discrepancy between the case set up in the writ petition and arguments raised during the hearing.
4. Dismissal of civil suit filed by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around a dispute concerning the payment of Excise duty and Customs duty on cranes supplied on a hiring basis for a project in Bangladesh. The appellant supplied cranes to the respondent, who failed to pay the Excise duty, leading to the appellant paying the Customs duty upon re-import of the cranes after project completion. The High Court found that the Excise Department rightfully discharged the bond as the respondent fulfilled its obligation, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition.

2. The appellant contended that the payment of import duty was necessitated due to the respondent's failure to pay the Excise duty. However, the High Court's judgment highlighted discrepancies between the case presented in the writ petition and the arguments raised during the hearing. The court noted that certain arguments were based on disputed facts not initially pleaded in the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of maintaining consistency in legal proceedings.

3. Following the High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's writ petition, the court provided an opportunity for the appellant to file a civil suit. Subsequently, a civil suit was filed but was ultimately dismissed in 2011. The Supreme Court, considering these circumstances, found no merit in the appeals and proceeded to dismiss them accordingly, bringing closure to the legal proceedings surrounding the dispute over duty payments and bond discharge.

This comprehensive analysis encapsulates the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the payment obligations, bond discharge, discrepancies in legal arguments, and the dismissal of the civil suit, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals by the Supreme Court.