Sabyasachi Mukherjee JUDGMENT
A. Vardarajan, J.
1. I agree with my learned brother Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. that Writ Petitions Nos. 11728 of 1984 and 13556, 13788, 13792, 15438 and 15439 of 1984 and Civil Appeals Nos. 6414 of 1983 and 3564 of 1984 have to be dismissed with costs, and that Civil Appeals Nos. 586 to 592 of 1979 have to be allowed with costs, and interim orders, if any, passed should stand vacated, and arrears of excise duties should be paid forthwith and future excise duty should be paid as and when the goods are cleared or otherwise as per law and rules. But I regret my inability to subscribe to the views expressed by him in the last two paras of his judgment regarding interim orders.
Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. (For himself and for S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.)
2. This first petition herein under Article 32 of the Constitution arises under the following circumstances.
3. The President of India promulgated an Ordinance being Central Ordinance No. 12 of 1979 called the Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Act called the Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Act'). The said impugned Act, received the assent of the President on 12th February, 1980 and under Section 1(2) of the impugned Act, retrospective effect to the Act was given from 24th February, 1979.
4. It may be mentioned that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Textile Mills v. Union of India rendered its decision on 24th January, 1980 Tax LR 1766 on this aspect of the matter. This decision will have to be examined in little detail later. As a result of the said decision and with a view to overcome the said decision, the Ordinance mentioned hereinbefore was promulgated on 24th November, 1979 which has since been replaced by the said Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980.
5. After this impugned Act was passed, the same was challenged before the Bombay High Court by several writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 623 of 1979 along with others were disposed of by the Bombay High Court by judgment delivered by the division bench on 16/17th June, 1983, reported in 1983 ECR 1142 D in the case of New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Mahalakshmi Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India. By the said judgment, the Bombay High Court disposed of 24 writ petitions as the question involved in all those petitions was identical. In that case the constitutional validity of the impugned Act as well as the levy of duty on certain goods identical to the present goods involved in this application under Article 32 of the Constitution was involved. The Bombay High Court dismissed the said writ petitions. We will refer to the said decision later. We may, however, state th........