LexMIS. MANGALAM ORGANICS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 406 A Devika Gujral Matters disposed of. B c MIS. MANGALAM ORGANICS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA (Civil Appeal No. 1338 of2017) APRIL 24, 2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Central Excise Act, 1944: s.11 C - Central Government empowered to issue notification to the effect that in view of a prevalent practice duty payable by asses.see shall not be paid - Non-issuance of such notification - Can a direction be given by Court- Permissibility of- Held: Issuance of a notification uls.11 C is in the nature of subordinate legislation D - Directing the Government to issue such a notification would amount to taking a policy decision in a particular manner, which is impermissible - When 'power' is given to Central Government u/ s.11 to issue a notification to the effect not to recover duty of excise or recover lesser duty than what is normally payable· under the Act, for deciding whether to issue such a notification or not, there may E be various considerations in the mind of the Government - It is purely a policy matter - Merely because conditions laid in the said provisions are satisfied, would not be a reason to necessarily issue such a notification - When an executive authority exercises a F legislative power by way of subordinate legislation, such executive authority cannot be asked to· enact the law which it has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority - Further, on facts as well, there is no clinching evidence to suggesi the existence of a general practice not to levy excise duty, a condition to be satisfied before issuance of notification u/s.11 by Central Government - Plea of Revenue that it is policy of the Government G not to issue notification uls.11 C when it benefits only a few assessees, as in the present case, found to be valid and justified - Administrative law - Subordinate legislation. s.11 (c) -Appellant paid excise duty - However, claimed refund of, by seeking issuance of notification uls. JJC - Held: S.JJC H 406 MIS. MANGALAM ORGANICS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 407 contemplates those situations where duty is not paid - It does not A cover the situation where duty is paid and that is to be rejimded. Administrative law - Scope of judicial review - Subordinate. legislation vis-a-vis administrative action - Distinction between - Discussed. Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Violation of - When not - Plea of appellant that non-issuance of notification u/s. 11 (c) by Central Government violated its rights u/Art. 14 - Held: If some units were able to escape payment of excise duty for certain reasons, the appellant ·cannot say that no duty should be recovered from it by invoking Art.14 - It is well established that the equality clause enshrined in Art. 14 is a positive concept and cannot be applied in the negative. · Dismissing the appeal, the Court 8 c HELD: 1. When the matter is examined taking into consideration all the facts in totality, it is clear that there was no · D clinching evidence to suggest the existence of a general practice not to levy excise duty. The entire effort of appellant is to recover back the said duty by seeking issuance of a notification under Section 11 C of the Act. Such a situation, cannot be countenanced. [Paras 28, 29] [424-A, E] E Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Gurukripa Resins Private Limited (2011) 13 SCC 180 : [2011] 8 SCR 178 - relied on. 2.1 Insofar as the argument based on obligation of the Government to issue such a notification is concerned, a clear distinction is to be made between the duty to act in an administrative capacity and the power to exercise statutor.y . function. If a public authority is foisted with any duty to do an act and fails to discharge that function, mandamus can be issued to the said authority to perform its duty. However, that is done while exercising the power of judicial review of an administrative action. It is entirely different from judicial review of a legislative action. [Para 30] [424-G-H] 2.2 Issuance of a notification under Section llC of the Act is in the nature of subordinate legislation. Directing the F G H 408 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. Government to issue such a notification would amount to take a policy decision in a particular manner, which is impermissible. When 'power' is given to the Central Government to issue a notification to the effect not to recover duty of ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.