1990 (3) TMI 91 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 stood extended to and was in force in the State of Mizoram? Held that - On a consideration of the matter we are of the view that the question whether the interlocutory order in the suit was overborne by this Court s order dated 29-4-1988 or not was not a matter of concern in the writ petition in the High Court and that that question would require to be considered in the forum before it was sought to be raised. It is quite possible that the order dated 29-4-1988 had the effect of neutralising the order in the suit. It was not necessary for the High Court to have gone into that question as it is not for us to do that here either. The observations of the High Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment excerpted above were therefore unnecessary for the purposes of the case before it. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Act stood extended to and remained operative in the State of Mizoram. That was sufficient to dispose of the controversy before it. We accordingly delete the said observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 form the judgment of the High Court. The certificate dated 7th August 1987 issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes Government of Mizoram Aizawl it is hardly necessary to emphasise would not survive after the judgment of the High Court was rendered. The observation of the High Curt in para 8 of its judgment implying that matter had to be clarified only in the suit is wholly erroneous. Accordingly the observations of the High Court in para 8 of the judgment are also deleted.

Issues:
1. Applicability of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in the State of Mizoram.
2. Observations made by the High Court regarding the assessment and collection of excise duty.
3. Effect of interlocutory orders in a civil suit on the enforcement of the Act.
4. Justifiability of the High Court's observations and conclusions.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Gauhati determined that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applied to Mizoram from 16-8-1944. However, the High Court also issued certain observations on how the authorities should proceed with assessing and collecting excise duty from the respondent under the Act.
2. The Attorney-General argued that the High Court's additional observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 were unnecessary and restrictive. He contended that the High Court should have allowed the parties to adhere to their rights and obligations without interference.
3. The Attorney-General further asserted that the High Court's remarks in para 8 were inconsistent with its own decision on the Act's applicability and gave undue weight to a certificate from the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes of Mizoram. The Attorney-General emphasized that the High Court's ruling on the Act's applicability should have overridden the certificate.
4. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the High Court was correct in cautioning the appellant about the risks of proceeding against the respondent despite the High Court's ruling in favor of the Act's applicability in Mizoram.
5. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 were unnecessary for the case at hand. The Court held that the High Court's decision on the Act's applicability was sufficient to resolve the dispute, and therefore, the additional observations were deleted.
6. The Court also clarified that the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes of Mizoram became irrelevant after the High Court's judgment. The Court deemed the High Court's observations in para 8 as erroneous and deleted them as well.
7. The respondent had filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court's decision, which would be considered separately on its merits. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded.

← Previous Next →