Supreme Court Rules Separate Notice Not Required for Recovery of Erroneous Refund under Central Excise Act
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not necessary for the recovery of an erroneous refund when the refund has been reviewed under Section 35E of the Act. The decision, rendered by a bench of the Supreme Court, settles the long-debated issue and clarifies the procedure for recovery in such cases.
The bench, comprising Justices M. R. Shah and [Name of Second Judge], emphasized that Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act operate in different realms with distinct purposes and time limits. It was observed that interpreting the provisions in a way that would render Section 35E ineffective would be impermissible. The Court referred to its earlier ruling in the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, which established the principle that recovery of excise duty can be made under Section 35E, even if the time limit under Section 11A has expired.
“The two sections operate in different fields and are invoked for different purposes. To so read the provisions would be to render Section 35E virtually ineffective, which would be impermissible,” the Court stated in its judgment.
The Court’s ruling overturns the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No. 186 of 2008, which had affirmed the judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had held that a separate notice under Section 11A was required for the recovery of an erroneous refund, and the absence of such notice would bar the recovery. The Supreme Court deemed the High Court’s reliance on its earlier decision in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. UOI as misplaced, as the subsequent ruling in Asian Paints (India) Ltd. had addressed the issue directly.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has provided much-needed clarity on the procedure for recovery of an erroneous refund under the Central Excise Act. The decision is expected to have significant implications for similar cases and streamline the recovery process, ensuring the effective implementation of Section 35E.
Date of Decision: March 24, 2023
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, vs M/S. MORARJEE GOKULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO.LTD.
