1993 (11) TMI 70 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of consent order affecting plea of limitation.
2. Interpretation of consent order and its impact on classification list.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. Error apparent on the face of the record in the consent order.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the validity of a consent order that deprived the petitioners of raising the plea of limitation in a dispute regarding excisable goods classification. The petitioners argued that this violated their rights under the Constitution and statutory provisions. They contended that the consent order restricted their ability to challenge the classification list, affecting their substantive rights.

2. The interpretation of the consent order and its impact on the classification list were central to the case. The petitioners raised concerns about the retrospective effect of any changes to the classification list and the procedure to be followed by the Excise authorities. They argued that any modification should be prospective and in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of due process.

3. The petitioners alleged a violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, claiming that the consent order unfairly targeted them, leading to financial constraints and potential closure of their operations. They argued that the order pre-judged the matter and limited their ability to defend their position, creating an unequal situation compared to other manufacturers.

4. The judgment analyzed whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in approving the consent order. It emphasized the need to uphold the approved classifications and allow the petitioners to raise the plea of limitation. The Court directed the Excise authorities to follow due process in any changes to the classification list, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the review petition, emphasizing the importance of upholding statutory rights and ensuring procedural fairness in matters of excisable goods classification. The judgment highlighted the need for prospective changes, adherence to due process, and protection of the petitioners' rights in line with constitutional principles.