1965 (9) TMI 13 - SC - Central Excise

It is not clear how the figure of 46.8534 M.T. was reached on which differential duty was ordered to be refunded Held that - The order under appeal must be set aside because there was no fair opportunity to the Company to represent its case. We accordingly set aside the order of the Government and send back the case to Government for decision after affording the Company a fair opportunity of making such submissions on the material in the possession of Government as it may choose to make

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to an order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance by Messrs Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd.
2. Alleged excess excise duty levied on slabs and billets from March 1, 1960, to April 24, 1960.
3. Disallowance of refund on scrap and rejection of readjustment of differential duty by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta.
4. Appeal to the Collector and subsequent revision before the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
5. Lack of clarity on the calculation of differential duty refund leading to a grievance by the Company.
6. Violation of principles of natural justice in the decision-making process by the Government.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave from Messrs Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd., challenging an order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. The Company, engaged in extracting Aluminium from Indian Bauxite and processing it into various forms, alleged that excess excise duty was levied on slabs and billets from March 1, 1960, to April 24, 1960. The dispute arose due to the treatment of scrap material and the calculation of duty refunds. The Assistant Collector disallowed the refund on scrap and rejected the readjustment of differential duty, leading to appeals to higher authorities. The Company raised concerns regarding the lack of clarity in the calculation of differential duty refund, highlighting procedural irregularities and a perceived violation of natural justice principles in the decision-making process by the Government.

The Court noted that while the Company was given a personal hearing and allowed to make written submissions, there were deficiencies in the process. Reports from the Collector and inspection results were not shared with the Company for rebuttal or clarification, depriving the Company of a fair opportunity to present its case adequately. The Court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for parties to make submissions and address any new evidence that could impact the decision. As a result, the Court set aside the Government's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, instructing the Government to afford the Company a fair opportunity to present its submissions on the available material. The Court held that the respondents would bear the cost of the appellant Company, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings.