Referred to Larger Bench VI: Section 11AB, The Central Excise Act, 1944

CCE v. SKF India, (2009) 13 SCC 461 & CCE v. International Auto, (2010) 2 SCC 672 – two cases with “almost identical” factual scenarios – fortuitously decided by the same Bench, do not [perhaps] correctly interpret the provisions of Section 11AB of The Central Excise Act, 1944 and “require a re-look”. 

What is the effect of the expression ‘ought to have been paid‘ occurring in Section 11AB?

What is the effect of Justice Bhagwati’s Dissent in Associated Cement Company, (1981) 4 SCC 578? Remember: “I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment prepared by my learned brother Venkataramiah J., but despite the great respect which I have for his learning and erudition, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by him.” 

Questions have been Referred to a Larger Bench in SAIL v. CCE, [Civil Appeal Nos. 2150 of 2012] decided on 07.12.2015.