UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus VICCO LABORATORIES

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 26-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
VICCO LABORATORIES 
NOVEMBER 26, 2007 
(DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-Tariff Entry 33. 04 and 33. 06-
Assessee manufacturing products as 'ayurvedic medicines '-Revenue 
C issuing Show Cause Notice seeking classification of the products as 
'cosmetics '-On earlier occasions move of the Revenue to classify the 
product as 'Cosmetics' decided by High Court and Supreme Court in 
favour of the assessee--Show Cause Notice challenged in Writ 
Petition-Allowed by High Court-On appeal, held : Show Cause 
D Notice is liable to be quashed-It was merely a repetition of earlier 
show Causes Notices with slight variation-the matter stood concluded 
by previous judgments of High Court and Supreme Court. 
Jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of Writ Court-To interfere with Show 
E Cause Notice-Scope of-Held: interference with Show Cause Notice 
should not be in a routine manner-It should be only in rare cases where 
it is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of Law-
Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled 
out. 
F 
Respondent was a manufacturer of various products including 
'Vicco Vajrudanti' and 'Vicco Termeric' which were stated to be 
'ayurvedic medicines'. Authorities issued Show Cause Notice in 1976 
seeking classification of the products as 'cosmetics' and not 'ayurvedic 
medicines'. The matter had been ultimately decided by Supreme Court 
G in favour of the respondent by order dated 19.4.93. The application for 
clarification of this order was dismissed as withdrawn. After introduction 
of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, authorities in 1987 issued Show 
Cause Notice in respect of the same products, seeking their 
H 
534 
.._ 
\.. 
UNION OF INDIA v. VICCO LABORATORIES 
535 
classification as 'cosmetics'. The appeal thereagainstwas withdrawn. A 
In 1996 again, Central Board of Excise by way of a Circular asked the 
authorities to reopen and finalize the classification of the products on 
the basis of a judgment of Supreme Court. However the Board clarified 
that the Circular would not have overriding effect over the judgments 
of High Court and Supreme Court in respect of the Vicco products. B 
Pursuant to the Circular, three Show Cause Notices were issued and 
the products were classified as 'cosmetics'. The dispute againstthe same 
was finally decided in favour of the respondent by Supreme Court. 
Thereafter again in 2005, authorities issued Show Cause Notice C 
seeking clarification of the products as 'cosmetics.' Respondents filed 
Writ Petition against the Show Cause Notice on the ground that the 
Notice was seeking to re-open and re-litigate the issues which had been 
finally concluded by the decisions of High Court and Supreme Court; 
and thatthe Notice was without jurisdiction and was issued in arbitrary D 
exercise of power and was an abuse of process oflaw. High Court decided 
in favour of the respondent Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage E 
of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the 
parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the 
concerned authorities about the absence of case for proceeding against 
the person against who the show cause notices have been issued. 
However, the general rule of abstinence from interference in such cases, 
F 
is not without exceptions. Where a Show Cause notice is issued either 
without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process oflaw, certainly in that 
case, the writ court would not hesitate to interefere even at the stage of 
issuance of show cause notice. The intereference at the show cause 
notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion G 
by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse 
of process oflaw should not suffice. It should be prima facie established 
to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference 
is ruled out [Para29] (550-E,F,G; 551-A] 
H 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
2. The classification of the products in question having attained 
finality pursuant to the decision of this Court, the appellants have no 
jurisdiction to issue impugned show cause notice on the ground on which 
it has been issued and it virtually amounts to re-opening of the issue 
which sta'nds concluded by the decision of this Court, and that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.