{"id":118225,"date":"1988-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988"},"modified":"2018-06-05T14:07:40","modified_gmt":"2018-06-05T08:37:40","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1236, \t\t 1988 SCR (3) 838<\/div>\n
Author: M Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, M.H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADHUMILAN SYNTEX PVT. LTD. & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/05\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1236\t\t  1988 SCR  (3) 838\n 1988 SCC  (3) 348\t  JT 1988 (2)\t255\n 1988 SCALE  (1)979\n\n\nACT:\n     Central Excises  and Salt\tAct, 1944-Challenging demand\nof  short   payment  of\t  excise  duty\tbeing  violative  of\nprovisions of section 11-A of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent  No. 1  in this appeal was manufacturing\nSpun yarn.  In the  manufacture of  the\t said  product,\t the\nrespondents used  as raw material cellulosic fibres and non-\ncellulosic fibres.  Prior to 7th July, 1983, the respondents\nhad filed  a classification list in respect of the spun yarn\nmanufactured by them showing the same as covered by Item No.\n18 (III)  (i) in  the first  schedule to the Central Excises\nand  Salts   Act,  1944\t  (\"Central  Excises   Act\").\tThis\nclassification was  on the  basis that\tthe  spun  yarn\t was\nmanufactured by\t them out of non-collulosic synthetic waste.\nThe said  classification list  was approved  by\t the  excise\nauthorities   on    7th\t  July,\t   1983.   A   supplementary\nclassification list was approved on 15th October, 1983.\n     Samples were drawn out of the spun yarn manufactured by\nthe respondents and sent for chemical analysis. Reports were\nsubmitted by  the Chemical  Analyser. On 7th February, 1984,\nthe Superintendent of Central Excises issued a demand notice\nagainst the  respondent No.  1 on the footing that there was\nshort payment  of excise  duty as  the goods manufactured by\nthe respondents\t were liable  to be classified under Central\nExcises Tariff\tItem No. 18(III) (ii). The respondents filed\na writ petition in the High Court, challenging the notice of\ndemand. On  9th February,  1984, the  Assistant Collector of\nCentral Excises\t passed\t an  order  modifying  the  approval\ngranted\t to   the  classification  lists  submitted  by\t the\nrespondents and\t classifying the  aforesaid product  of\t the\nrespondents under Item No. 18(III) (ii) of Schedule I of the\nCentral\t Excises   Act,\t on   the   basis   of\t which\t the\nSuperintendent,\t Central   Excises,  issued   on  the\t10th\nFebruary, 1984,\t a notice  to the  respondent No. 1, calling\nupon them  to show cause why duty short-levied should not be\nrecovered from\tthem under the provisions of section 11-A of\nthe Central  Excises Act. A second similar show-cause notice\nwas also issued.\n     The Assistant  Collector passed  orders of adjudication\ndated 5th\n839\nMarch,\t1984,\tmodifying  the\t classification\t lists\t and\nconfirming the\tdemand made  under the\taforesaid notice  of\ndemand. The  respondents-petitioners thereupon amended their\naforesaid writ\tpetition to  challenge\tthe  two  show-cause\nnotices and the orders of adjudication. The petitioners also\nfiled an  appeal before\t the Collector\tof  Central  Excises\nagainst the said orders of adjudication.\n     The High  Court allowed  the  writ\t petition  in  part,\nquashing the  notice of\t demand for  the period 15th August,\n1983 to\t 6th February,\t1984, and  the orders  modifying the\nclassification lists,  and directing  the Collector, Central\nExcises to  hear the  appeal of\t the petitioners  on  merits\nconsidering their evidence in respect of the period from 7th\nFebruary, 1984\tonwards. The  High Court  took the view that\nthe show-cause\tnotice served  on the  petitioner  could  be\ntreated as  valid only\tin respect  of the  period from\t 7th\nFebruary, 1984,\t onwards and  not retrospectively  from 15th\nAugust, 1983  to 6th February, 1984. The Union of India, the\nCollector of  Central Excises and other Excise officers then\nmoved this  Court by this appeal against the decision of the\nHigh Court.\n     Dismissing the appeal, the Court,\n^\n     HELD:  If\t the  Cellulosic   spun\t yarn\tmade  by   a\nmanufacturer with  the aid  of power contains man-made fibre\nof non-cellulosic  origin,  it\twill  fall  under  Item\t No,\n18(III) (ii),  but if it does not contain any man-made fibre\nof non-cellulosic  origin,  it\twill  fall  under  Item\t No.\n18(III) (i)  and duty  would be\t leviable there\t at a  lower\nrate. [843B-C]\n     Under the\tprovisions of  Section 11-A  of the  Central\nExcises Act,  before  any  demand  is  made  on\t any  person\nchargeable in  respect of  non-levy or\tshort levy or under-\npayment of duty, a notice requiring him to show cause why he\nshould not  pay the  amounts specified in the notice must be\nserved on  him. In this case, no such notice was served. The\naforesaid notice  of demand dated 7th February, 1984, was in\nviolation of  the provisions  of Section  11-A and is bad in\nlaw, and  the High Court was fully justified in quashing the\nsame. [843G-H;844G-H]\n     The appellants  contended that  although the  notice of\ndemand might  be set  aside, the  notice to show cause dated\n9th\/10th February, 1984, should be treated as a valid notice\nin respect  of the  period from\t 15th August,  1983  to\t 6th\nFebruary, 1984\tand the\t period\t from  7th  February,  1984,\nonwards. The  notice referred  to the  service of  notice of\ndemand dated 7th February, 1984 on the respondent No. 1. The\nnotice\tset   out  as\tan   established   fact\t  that\t the\nclassification lists submitted by the\n840\nrespondents had\t been modified\tby the\tAssistant Collector,\nand the\t only matter  with respect  to which the respondents\nwere  asked   to  show\t cause\twas   with  regard   to\t the\nquantification of  the amount of short levy which was liable\nto be  recovered from the respondent No. 1. The Notice could\nnot  be\t  regarded  as\t a  show-cause\tnotice\tagainst\t the\nmodification of\t the classification  lists in respect of the\naforesaid period.  The show  cause notice was bad in law and\nof no  legal  effect  as  far  as  the\tearlier\t period\t was\nconcerned. Under  Section 11-A\tof the\tCentral Excises Act,\nthe notice  can relate only to a period of six months period\nto the\tissue of  that notice  except in  cases where  it is\nalleged that  the short\t levy or  payment  has\toccurred  by\nreason of  fraud, collusion  or wilful\tmisrepresentation or\nsuppression of\tfacts or  contravention of the provisions of\nthe said  Act or  rules, as  contemplated in  the proviso to\nsub-section (1)\t of Section  11-A. No such case was made out\nin the\tsaid show-cause\t notice. The  said show-cause notice\nmust be\t struck down  in so  far  as  the  period  upto\t 6th\nFebruary, 1984,\t was concerned\tand could  be regarded\tas a\nproper show-cause  notice only\tin respect of the subsequent\nperiod from 7th February, 1984 onwards. Under the said show-\ncause notice,  the question  of short  levy or\tnon-levy  of\nexcise duty  prior to  6th February, 1984, could not be gone\ninto by\t the Collector\tand the\t High Court was right in the\nview it took. [845B-C;846A-E]\n     Gokak  Patel  Vokkart  Ltd.  v.  Collector\t of  Central\nExcise, Belgaum, A.I.R.<\/a> 1987 S.C. 1161, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  No.\t1110
\n(NT) of 1986
\n     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  24.11.1984 of\t the
\nHigh Court  of Madhya  Pradesh, Indore Bench, passed in M.P.
\nNO. 104 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     Gobind Das,  Mrs. Sushma  Suri, Mrs.  Indra Sawhney and
\nC.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Y.S.  Chitale, Sanjay Sarin, Abdul Chitale and S.K.
\nGambhir, for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KANIA, J.\tThis is\t an appeal against the judgment of a
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tMadhya Pradesh\tHigh Court, Jabalpur
\n(Indore Bench) in M. Petition No. 104 of 1984. The appeal is
\nfiled at the instance of the
\n841<\/span>
\nUnion of  India, Collector of Central Excise, Indore and two
\nother excise  officers. The  respondents  are  the  original
\npetitioners in\tthe aforesaid  petition. We propose to refer
\nto the parties by the description in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can
\nbe shortly stated.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner  No. 1  is a  Company manufacturing spun
\nyarn. According\t to the\t petitioners, in  the manufacture of
\nthe said  product they use as raw material cellulosic fibres
\nand non-cellulosic  fibres. Some  time prior  to  7th  July,
\n1983, the petitioners filed a classification list in respect
\nof the\tspun yarn  manufactured by  them showing the same as
\ncovered by Item No. 18(III) (i) in the First Schedule to the
\nCentral Excises\t and Salt Act, 1944 (referred to hereinafter
\nas the “Central Excise Act”). The said schedule is generally
\nreferred  to   as  the\t “Central  Excises   Tariff”.\tThis
\nclassification was  on the  basis that\tthe  spun  yarn\t was
\nmanufactured by\t them out of non-cellulosic synthetic waste.
\nThe said  classification list  was approved  by\t the  excise
\nauthorities   on    7th\t  July,\t   1983.   A   supplementary
\nclassification list  was approved on 15th October, 1983. The
\npetitioners  were   clearing  the  goods  on  the  basis  of
\naforesaid classification lists. It appears that samples were
\ndrawn out  of the  spun yarn manufactured by the petitioners
\nand sent  for chemical\texamination. There  are some reports
\nsubmitted by  the Chemical  Analyser, with  the\t details  of
\nwhich we  are not  concerned. Without  giving any show cause
\nnotice or affording any opportunity to the petitioners to be
\nheard, on  7th February, 1984, the Superintendent of Central
\nExcise issued  a  notice  of  demand  for  a  total  sum  of
\nRs.26,47,749.39 against\t the petitioner No. 1 on the footing
\nthat there  was short  payment of excise duty. This was done
\non the\tground that the yarn manufactured by the petitioners
\nhad been  manufactured out  of waste  of synthetic fibres in
\nblend of  viscose fibres (of noncellulosic origin) and hence
\nthe said  goods manufactured  by  them\twere  liable  to  be
\nclassified   under   Central   Excises\t Tariff\t  Item\t No.
\n18(III)(ii). It\t is  an\t admitted  position  that  the\tyarn
\nmanufacturing process  used by\tthe petitioners was with the
\naid of\tpower. The  petitioners\t filed\tthe  aforesaid\twrit
\npetition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the
\nvalidity of  the said  notice of  demand dated 7th February,
\n1984.  The  High  Court\t granted  an  interim  stay  of\t the
\noperation of the demand notice on 9th February, 1984. On the
\nsame day, namely, 9th February, 1984, an order was passed by
\nthe Assistant  Collector of  Central  Excise  modifying\t the
\napproval  granted  to  the  aforesaid  classification  lists
\nsubmitted by the petitioners which had been approved
\n842<\/span>
\nas aforesaid  and classifying  the aforesaid  product  under
\nItem No.  18(III) (ii)\tof Schedule 1 of the Central Excises
\nAct. On\t 10th February,\t 1984 a\t notice was  issued  by\t the
\nSuperintendent, Central\t Excise\t on  the  petitioner  No.  1
\nreciting  inter\t  alia\tthat  the  Assistant  Collector\t had
\nmodified the  approval of  the classification  lists on\t 9th
\nFebruary, 1984 and calling upon the petitioner No. 1 to show
\ncause why the duty short levied should not be recovered from
\nthem under  the provisions  of Section\t11-A of\t the Central
\nExcises Act.  A second\tsimilar show  cause notice  was also
\nissued. The petitioner No. 1 wrote to the excise authorities
\npointing out  that in  view of\tthe aforesaid  writ petition
\nfiled by  the appellant, the adjudication proceedings should
\nbe stayed  till writ  petition was disposed of. This request
\nwas  turned   down  on\t 5th  March,   1984  and  orders  of
\nadjudication  were   passed  by\t  the  Assistant   Collector
\nmodifying the classification lists and confirming the demand
\nmade under  the aforesaid  notice of demand. The petitioners
\nthereupon amended  the aforesaid writ petition filed by them
\nand challenged\tthe two\t show cause  notices as\t well as the
\nsaid orders  of adjudication  dated  5th  March,  1984.\t The
\npetitioners also  filed an  appeal before  the Collector  of
\nCentral Excises\t (Appeal) against the orders of adjudication
\ndated 5th  March,  1984.  On  24th  November,  1984  by\t the
\nimpugned judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the
\naforesaid writ\tpetition in  part. Mulye,  J.  held  by\t his
\njudgment that  the writ\t petition was  allowed to the extent
\nthat the  demand for  recovery of  Rs.26,47,749.39  for\t the
\nperiod 15th  August, 1983  to 6th  February, 1984, which was
\nthe period  referred to\t in the\t demand notice\twas quashed.
\nHowever, the  learned Judge  directed the Collector, Central
\nExcise before  whom the\t appeal filed by the petitioners was
\npending to  decide the\tappeal in respect of the demand made
\nby the\texcise authorities for the subsequent period. Giani,
\nJ., the\t other learned judge, in his concurring judgment set
\naside the  two roders  issued by  the  Assistant  Collector,
\nCentral Excise,\t Ujjain Division  both dated 5th March, 1984
\nas set\tout earlier. Copies of these adjudication orders are
\nat Annexure R\/10 and R\/11 respectively to the writ petition.
\nVery shortly  put, both\t the Judges  held that the notice of
\ndemand and  the orders\tmodifying  the\tclassification\tlist
\nserved on  the petitioners  were bad in law and ordered that
\nthe same  be quashed. A perusal of the judgment also clearly
\nindicates  that\t  the  Division\t  Bench\t directed  that\t the
\nCollector, Central Excise (Appeal) should hear the appeal of
\nthe petitioners\t on merits  after giving  the petitioners an
\nadequate opportunity  to put  their case  and their evidence
\nbefore him  in respect of the period from 7th February, 1984
\nonwards. Thus,\tthe Division  Bench took  the view  that the
\nshow cause notice served on the petitioners could be treated
\nas valid and effective only in respect of the period
\n843<\/span>
\nfrom 7th February, 1984 onwards and not retrospectively from
\n15th August, 1983 to 6th February, 1984 being the period for
\nwhich the  demand has already been made in the demand notice
\ndated 9th February, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     As far  as the  relevant items in the First Schedule of
\nthe Central  Excises Act  are concerned, it is not necessary
\nto set\tout the\t same in  detail. It will be enough to point
\nout that  if the cellulosic spun yarn made by a manufacturer
\nwith the  aid of  power contains  man  made  fibre  of\tnon-
\ncellulosic origin, it will fall under Item No. 18(III) (ii),
\nbut if\tit does\t not contain  any  man-made  fibre  of\tnon-
\ncellulosic origin,  it will  fall under Item No. 18(III) (i)
\nand duty  would be  leviable there  at\ta  lower  rate.\t The
\nrelevant portion  of Section 11-A of the Central Excises Act
\nruns as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “When any  duty of  excise has  not been levied or
\n\t  paid or  has been  short-levied or  short-paid  or
\n\t  erroneously refunded,\t a  Central  Excise  Officer
\n\t  may, within  six months  from the  relevant  date,
\n\t  serve notice\ton the\tperson chargeable  with\t the
\n\t  duty which  has not  been levied  or paid or which
\n\t  has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the
\n\t  refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to
\n\t  show cause  why  he  should  not  pay\t the  amount
\n\t  specified in the notice:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided that  where any\t duty of  excise has
\n\t  not been  levied or  paid or has been short-levied
\n\t  or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of
\n\t  fraud, collusion  or any  wilful mis-statement  or
\n\t  suppression of  fact, or  contravention of  any of
\n\t  the provisions  of this  Act or  of the rules made
\n\t  thereunder with  intent to  evade payment of duty,
\n\t  by such  person or  his agent,  the provisions  of
\n\t  this sub-section  shall have effect, as if for the
\n\t  words\t “Central   Excise   Officer”,\t the   words
\n\t  “Collector of\t Central Excise”  and for  the words
\n\t  “six\tmonths”,   the\twords\t“five  years”\twere
\n\t  substituted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that before
\nany demand  is made  on any  person chargeable in respect of
\nnon-levy or  short levy\t or under  payment of duty, a notice
\nrequiring him  to show\tcause why  he  should  not  pay\t the
\namounts specified in the notice must be served on him. It is
\nthe admitted  position in  the present\tcase  that  no\tsuch
\nnotice was  served. It\twould thus appear that the aforesaid
\ndemand notice  dated 7th  February, 1984 was in violation of
\nthe provisions of Section 11-A and is bad in law. Mr. Govind
\nDas, learned
\n844<\/span>
\ncounsel for  the appellant, however, contended that although
\nthe aforesaid  Section provides that no demand could be made
\nagainst a person thereunder without affording that person an
\nadequate opportunity  to show cause against the same, in the
\npresent case,  though no  prior show  cause notice was given
\nand the\t petitioners were  not given  an opportunity  to  be
\nheard before  the notice of demand was issued, such a notice
\nwas issued  and an opportunity to show cause was given after
\nthe demand  was made  and the demand confirmed after hearing
\nand hence  it must be regarded as valid. It was submitted by
\nhim that  a post  facto show cause notice should be regarded
\nas adequate in law. In support of this contention Mr. Govind
\nDas tried  to place  reliance on  certain decisions  where a
\nview has  been taken that in cases where urgent and emergent
\naction is  required, an opportunity to be heard can be given
\nafter the  order affecting  a person adversely is passed and
\nthat where  a particular  Act does  not provide for any such
\nopportunity to\tbe heard being given before an adverse order
\nis passed,  a post  facto opportunity  to be heard might, in
\ncertain cases,\tbe  regarded  as  adequate  compliance\twith
\nprinciples of  natural justice.\t We are\t of the\t view  these
\ncases have  no relevance in considering the questions before
\nus because  it is quite apparent that in the present case no
\nurgent or  emergent action  was required and Section 11-A of
\nthe Central  Excises Act  clearly provides  that prior\tshow
\ncause notice  must be  issued to the person against whom any
\ndemand on  ground of  short levy  or non-levy  of payment of
\nexcise duty  is proposed  to be made. In Gokak Patel Vokkart
\nLtd. v.\t Collector of  Central Excise,\tBelgaum, A.I.R.<\/a> 1987
\nS.C. 1161 this Court has held that the provisions of Section
\n11-A(1) &  (2) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 make it
\nclear that  the statutory  scheme is  that in the situations
\ncovered by sub-section (1), a notice of show cause has to be
\nissued and  sub-Section (2) requires that the cause shown by
\nway of representation has to be considered by the prescribed
\nauthority and then only the amount has to be determined. The
\nscheme is  in consonance  with the rules of natural justice.
\nAn opportunity to be heard is intended to be afforded to the
\nperson who is likely to be prejudiced when the order is made
\nbefore\tmaking\t the  order.  Notice  is  thus\ta  condition
\nprecedent to a demand under sub-Section (2).\n<\/p>\n
     In view of the aforesaid decision the submission of Mr.
\nGovind Das  must be  rejected and  it must  be held that the
\naforesaid notice  of demand  was clearly  bad in law and the
\nHigh Court  was fully,\twith respect,  justified in quashing
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  submission of Mr. Govind Das was that, in any
\nevent,
\n845<\/span>
\nas the\tCollector  of  Central\tExcise\t(Appeals)  had\tbeen
\ndirected to  examine the  merits of the matter in respect of
\nalleged short  levy or\tnon-levy and the modification of the
\nclassification lists  after allowing adequate opportunity to
\nthe petitioners\t to show cause in respect of the period from
\n7th February,  1984, onwards,  the question  as\t to  whether
\nthere was  short levy  or non-levy  in respect of the period
\nfrom 15th  August, 1983\t to 6th\t February, 1984\t should even
\nalso be\t allowed to  be decided\t by the\t Collector.  It\t was
\nsubmitted by  Mr. Govind  Das that  although the  notice  of
\ndemand may  be set  aside the  notice to  show\tcause  dated
\n9\/10th February,  1984 should  be treated  as  a  valid\t and
\neffective notice  in respect of the period from 15th August,
\n1983 to\t 6th February,\t1984 as\t well as the period from 7th
\nFebruary, 1984\tonwards.  In  this  connection,\t it  is\t the
\nsubmission of  Dr. Chitale that this notice merely asked the
\npetitioners   to   show\t  cause\t  against   calculation\t  or
\ndetermination of  the amount  of short\tlevy and not against
\nthe alteration\tin the\tclassification lists on the basis of
\nwhich short-levy  was alleged  and hence,  in respect of the
\nsaid period from 15th August, 1983 to 6th February, 1984 the
\nshow cause  notice is  liable to be struck down. In our view
\nthe submission\tof Dr.\tChitale deserves to be accepted. The
\nopening paragraph  of the  show cause  notice refers  to the
\nservice of  notice of  demand dated  7th February,  1984 for
\nRs.26,47,749.39 on the petitioner. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
\nsaid notice run as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “AND\twhereas\t  the  Assistant  Collector  Central
\n\t  Excise,   Ujjain    under    his    letter\tC.N.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  V(18)III\/I\/1\/83\/371-1374 dated  9th Feb.,  84\t has
\n\t  modified approval  of the  classification lists of
\n\t  the party  and has  directed that the short levied
\n\t  should be  quantified by  the\t Inspector,  Central
\n\t  Excise,  Biaora\/Superintendent   Central   Excise,
\n\t  Ujjain and confirmation or otherwise of such short
\n\t  levied and  recoveries if  any would be ordered by
\n\t  him (Assistant  Collector Central Excise, Division
\n\t  Ujjain) after following the prescribed procedure.
\n\t  THEREFORE, in\t accordance with  the said  order of
\n\t  the Assistant\t Collector, Central Excise Division,
\n\t  Ujjain, you  are called  upon to show cause to the
\n\t  Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ujjain within
\n\t  10 days  of the  receipt of this show cause notice
\n\t  as to\t why the  short\t levies\t of  Rs.26,47,749.39
\n\t  should not  be recovered  from you,  under Section
\n\t  11-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A reading\tof these  paragraphs clearly  shows that the
\nnotice set
\n846<\/span>
\nout as\tan established\tfact that  the classification  lists
\nsubmitted by  the  petitioners\thad  been  modified  by\t the
\nAssistant Collector,  Central Excise,  Ujjain and  the\tonly
\nmatter with  respect to\t which the petitioners were asked to
\nshow cause  was with  regard to\t the quantification  of\t the
\namount of  the short levy and consequently, the amount which
\nwas liable  to be  recovered from the petitioner No. 1. This
\nnotice, therefore, cannot be regarded as a show cause notice
\nagainst the  modification of  the  classification  lists  in
\nrespect of the aforesaid period. In these circumstances, the
\nshow cause  notice is  bad in  law and of no legal effect as
\nfar as\tthe said  earlier period is concerned. Under Section
\n11-A of\t the Central  Excise Act, the notice can relate only
\nto a  period of six months prior to the issue of that notice
\nexcept in  cases where it is alleged the short levy or short
\npayment has occurred by reason of fraud, collusion or wilful
\nmisrepresentation or  suppression of  facts or contravention
\nof the\tprovisions of  the said\t Act or\t rules made  by\t the
\nperiod concerned,  as contemplated  in the  proviso to\tsub-
\nSection (1) of Section 11-A. No such case has been sought to
\nbe made\t here in  the said  show cause notice. The result is
\nthat the  said show  cause notice  must be struck down in so
\nfar as\tperiod upto 6th February, 1984 is concerned, and can
\nbe regarded as a proper show cause notice only in respect of
\nthe subsequent\tperiod from  7th February,  1984 onwards. We
\nare, therefore,\t of the\t view that under the said show cause
\nnotice the question of short levy or non-levy of excise duty
\nprior to  6th February,\t 1984 cannot  be gone  into  by\t the
\nCollector and  the High Court was right in the view which it
\ntook.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, the  appeal fails and is dismissed with
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
S.L.\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n847<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1236, 1988 SCR (3) 838 Author: M Kania Bench: Kania, M.H. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: MADHUMILAN SYNTEX PVT. LTD. & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/05\/1988 BENCH: KANIA, M.H. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-05T08:37:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-05T08:37:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2660,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-05T08:37:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-05T08:37:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988","datePublished":"1988-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-05T08:37:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988"},"wordCount":2660,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-05T08:37:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-madhumilan-syntex-pvt-ltd-anr-on-3-may-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}