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, 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 of the Act?

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.” 

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