S.N.S. (MINERALS) LTD. AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 376 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.N.S. (MINERALS) LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
. ... 
" 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Articles 226 and 136-Review of judgment in writ petition-Scope of-
Review petition filed be/are High Court stating that plea with regard to 
demand of duty In terms of s.11-A was raised in amended writ petition. but 
High Court did not deal with the same-High Court dismissing review 
petition observing that no such plea was raised-Held, since no such 
argument was advanced before High Court, keeping in view limited scope 
D of review, this is not a fit case warranting interference-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908-s.J/4-Central Excise Act, 1944-s.ll-A. 
Appellants, manufacturer of limestone chips, filed a writ petition before 
~ 
the High Court questioning the order of the Excise authorities quantifying 
the liability of appellant no. I for imposition of penalty. The High Court 
.~ 
E quashed the orders as regards imposition of penalty. In the appeal before the 
Supreme Court. it was contended that the High Court also ought to have struck 
down the demand of duty based on s.11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 
The Court dismissed the appeal observing that such an argument was not 
answered in the judgment of the High Court. A review petition was then filed 
F before the High Court, which dismissed the review petition holding that the 
requisite ground was neither taken in the writ petition nor in the S.L.P. filed 
before the Supreme Court. 
'>-· 
In the present appeal it was contended for the appellants-manufacturers 
that though in the original petition no such ground was taken but in the 
G amended writ petition such a stand was taken. Counsel for the respondents, 
on the other hand, contended that no specific plea with regard to duty demanded 
in terms ofs.11-A was taken. 
i 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
376 
.. 
S.N.S.(MINERALS}LTD.v. U.0.1.[PASAYAT.J.] 
377 
HELD: Even if it is accepted that the plea was taken regarding limitation, A 
the same was really not specifically taken. There was no reference to Section 
11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. From a reading of the order of the High 
Court and the counter affidavit filed before this Court in which it has been 
specifically urged at paragraphs 9 and IO that no such argument was 
advanced, this is not a fit case where any interference is called for, considering B 
the limited scope of review. !Paras 9 and 1011380-G; 381-A-BI 
Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Ors. 12006] 4 SCC 78', 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 804 of2005. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 13 .11.2003 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Jabalpur (M.P.) in Review Petition No. MCC 403/2002. 
c 
A.R. Madhav Rao, Alok Yadav and Rajesh Kumar for the Appellants. 
R.G. Padia, T.V. Ratnam and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
I 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
,. , 
of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the 
Review Petition filed by the appellants. This is in essence the second journey E 
of the appellants in respect ofa Writ Petition (W.P.No.522/90) filed before the 
High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 3.3.1994. 
The same was filed for quashing the proceedings initiated by respondent 
No.3 i.e. Superintendent (Preventive) Central Excise, Indore. During the 
pendency of the petition, orders were passed quantifying the liability of F 
appellant No. I for imposition of p~nalty. These orders were challenged in the 
writ petition by amending the same. The High Court quashed the orders so 
---1 
far as they related to imposition of penalty. Questioning the correctness of 
the order an appeal was filed before this Court which was disposed of by 
order dated 16.4.2002. Basically, two stands were taken in the appeal. This 
Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court on the aspect of G 
manufacture. The residual argument was that since the High Court had quashed 
the penalty imposed by the Collector, Central Excise by taking a view that the 
appellants were under a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay excise 
I. 
[2006] 3 SCR 87 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 3 S.C.R. 
duty on limestone chips, the High Court ought to have struck down the 
demand of duty based on Section 11 A of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.