VARADARAJAN - (1.) THE Judgments of the court were delivered by
(2.) I agree with my learned brother Sabyasachi Mukharii, J. that Writ Petition 11728 of 1984 and 13556, 13788, 13792, 15438 and 15439 of 1984 and Civil Appeals 6414 of 1983 and 3564 of 1984 have to be dismissed with costs, and that Civil 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. SABYASACHT MUKHARJI, J. -This first petition herein under Article 32 of the Constitution arises under the following circumstances : The President of India promulgated an Ordinance being central Ordinance 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 319 Act received the assent of the President on February 12, 1980 and under S. 1(2) of the impugned Act, retrospective effect to the Act was given from 24/02/1979.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that the Gujarat High court in the case of Vijay Textile v. Union of India rendered its decision on 24/01/1979 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view to overcome the said decision, the Ordinance mentioned hereinbefore was promulgated on 24/11/1979 which has since been replaced by the said central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980. After this impugned Act was passed, the same was challenged before the Bombay High court by several Writ Petition. Writ Petition 623 of 1979 along with others were disposed of by the Bombay High court by judgment delivered by the division bench on June 16/17, 1983 in the case of New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. and Mahalakshmi Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India. By the said judgment, the Bombay High court disposed of 24 Writ Petition 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 Petition. We will refer to the said decision later. We may, however, state that we are in respectful agreement with the conclusions as well as the reasoning of the decision of the Bombay High court in the said petitions. Special leave to appeal to this court has been granted from the said decision in the case of New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd.;