Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  8232-34   OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C)NOS. 29843-29845 OF 2010)  

JAINA WINES PVT. LTD. & ORS.        APPELLANT(S)

                    VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.         RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.

2. Delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.

3. Application for restoration of Order dated 19.11.2012 is  

rejected.

4. Leave granted.

5. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay,  Bench  at  

Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.7033 of 2007 dated 19.9.2008 and in  

Civil Application No.10160 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.7033 of 2007  

and in Civil Application No.10161 of 2009, dated 25.03.2010.

6. The appellants before us are the wine manufacturers who  

have obtained license for manufacturing wine in Sangli District in  

the  State  of  Maharashtra.  The  Government  of  Maharashtra  has  

introduced a policy for the grape growing producers in all areas of  

Maharashtra majorly for the highest grape producing districts of

Page 2

2

Sangli and Nashik. The policy so framed by State Government was  

introduced so as to protect the grape growing farmers from sudden  

financial losses and to encourage the production of grapes within  

the state.  

7. The  Government  of  Maharashtra,  therefore,  for  the  

aforesaid reasons issued a notification thereby exempting the levy  

of excise duty to wine manufacturers partly for the year 2001 and  

remitted  the whole of the excise duty with effect from 18.06.2004.

8. The  respondent  herein-Shri  Vilas,  Son  of  Dongarlal  

Jaiswal, retailer of country liquor, thereafter had approached the  

Writ Court, inter alia, contending that though the State Government  

had  exempted  the  manufacturers  from  payment  of  excise  duty,  the  

manufacturers  in  the  garb  of  collecting  M.R.P  have  included  the  

excise duty in the Maximum Retail Prices of such country/foreign  

liquor manufactured by them and, therefore, had requested the Court  

to  direct  the  manufacturers  to  remit/deposit  the  excise  duty  so  

collected  by  the  manufacturers  to  the  retailers  who  are  by  the  

notification of the government exempted from the payment of excise  

duty.

9. The High Court, after hearing the parties to the lis, has  

passed an omnibus order. In the said order, it has stated that if  

for any reason the manufacturers have collected excise duty then  

they  would be  liable to  deposit the  said amount  with the  State  

Government since the State Government had exempted the manufacturers  

from  the payment  of excise  duty.  The High  Court has  therefore

Page 3

3

concluded  that  if  such  an  excise  duty  is  collected  by  the  

manufacturers  by  making  it  a  part  of  the  maximum  retail  price,  

allowing them to retain it further without allowing it to flow back  

to the state coffers would amount to unjust-enrichment as noticed by  

this Court in the case of  Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of  

India & Ors., reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536.

10. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the High Court, some  

of  the  respondents  and  also  the  intervenors  had  filed  Review  

Petitions before the High Court,  inter alia, contending that they  

have not collected excise duty and, therefore, the High Court ought  

not to have directed the wine manufacturers to deposit the excise  

duty.  The High Court while dismissing the Review Petitions had  

specifically observed that if for any reason notice has been issued  

by the Department asking them to deposit the excise duty, it is  

always open to the manufacturers to make a representation before the  

competent authority concerned by filing their reply to the effect  

that  they  have  not  collected  excise  duty  and,  therefore,  the  

payment/deposit of the excise duty would not arise.

11. Aggrieved by the main order as well as the order passed in  

the Review Petitions, some of the wine manufacturers are before us  

in these appeals.

12. We  have heard  learned senior  counsel appearing  for the  

parties to the  lis  and also the learned counsel for the State of  

Maharashtra. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order  

passed by the High Court.

Page 4

4

13. In our considered view, the High Court has not committed  

any error whatsoever which would call for our interference under  

Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil  

Appeals are dismissed.  

14. However,  we  clarify  that  if  for  any  reason  the  

respondents/other  authorities  had  issued  notice(s),  inter  alia,  

directing the appellants and other wine manufacturers to deposit the  

excise duty which according to the respondents is collected by the  

manufacturers, it is for the manufacturers to file appropriate reply  

thereby bringing it to their notice that they have not collected  

such excise duty and the same is also reflected in their books of  

account.  If such a reply is filed by the wine manufacturers, it is  

for  the  authority  to  consider  the  same  and  pass  an  appropriate  

reasoned order. If for any reason the appellants are aggrieved by  

the order that may be passed by the authority considered, they would  

be at liberty to ventilate their grievances before an appropriate  

forum.

Ordered accordingly.

...........................J. (H.L. DATTU)

...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 11, 2013.