Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1962 (2) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1962 (2) TMI 2 - SC - Central Excise


  1. 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SC
  2. 2016 (11) TMI 545 - SC
  3. 2007 (5) TMI 591 - SC
  4. 2006 (9) TMI 279 - SC
  5. 2005 (8) TMI 113 - SC
  6. 1996 (3) TMI 131 - SC
  7. 1995 (11) TMI 342 - SC
  8. 1994 (8) TMI 237 - SC
  9. 1993 (9) TMI 108 - SC
  10. 1988 (11) TMI 108 - SC
  11. 1986 (4) TMI 341 - SC
  12. 1962 (8) TMI 35 - SC
  13. 1962 (8) TMI 2 - SC
  14. 1996 (9) TMI 147 - SCH
  15. 2023 (1) TMI 289 - HC
  16. 2018 (10) TMI 26 - HC
  17. 2018 (12) TMI 166 - HC
  18. 2017 (4) TMI 507 - HC
  19. 2016 (9) TMI 355 - HC
  20. 2016 (7) TMI 1157 - HC
  21. 2016 (2) TMI 6 - HC
  22. 2015 (9) TMI 1438 - HC
  23. 2015 (9) TMI 256 - HC
  24. 2014 (12) TMI 909 - HC
  25. 2009 (8) TMI 143 - HC
  26. 2009 (6) TMI 4 - HC
  27. 2004 (4) TMI 65 - HC
  28. 2003 (7) TMI 29 - HC
  29. 1994 (12) TMI 79 - HC
  30. 1993 (12) TMI 58 - HC
  31. 1987 (11) TMI 85 - HC
  32. 1987 (10) TMI 362 - HC
  33. 1986 (7) TMI 382 - HC
  34. 1985 (1) TMI 278 - HC
  35. 1982 (10) TMI 41 - HC
  36. 1981 (9) TMI 280 - HC
  37. 2023 (10) TMI 1175 - AT
  38. 2023 (7) TMI 839 - AT
  39. 2022 (3) TMI 914 - AT
  40. 2022 (1) TMI 523 - AT
  41. 2021 (8) TMI 391 - AT
  42. 2021 (2) TMI 398 - AT
  43. 2019 (7) TMI 723 - AT
  44. 2017 (1) TMI 221 - AT
  45. 2015 (10) TMI 1727 - AT
  46. 2015 (2) TMI 843 - AT
  47. 2014 (11) TMI 1062 - AT
  48. 2013 (9) TMI 588 - AT
  49. 2010 (10) TMI 649 - AT
  50. 2009 (12) TMI 131 - AT
  51. 2009 (8) TMI 812 - AT
  52. 2005 (4) TMI 204 - AT
  53. 2000 (6) TMI 98 - AT
  54. 1989 (2) TMI 195 - AT
  55. 1984 (2) TMI 319 - AT
  56. 2016 (7) TMI 656 - CGOVT
  57. 2016 (7) TMI 719 - CGOVT
  58. 2016 (7) TMI 434 - CGOVT
  59. 2016 (7) TMI 433 - CGOVT
  60. 2016 (7) TMI 356 - CGOVT
  61. 2016 (7) TMI 302 - CGOVT
  62. 2016 (7) TMI 230 - CGOVT
  63. 2016 (7) TMI 803 - CGOVT
  64. 2016 (7) TMI 772 - CGOVT
  65. 2016 (7) TMI 229 - CGOVT
  66. 2015 (12) TMI 1644 - CGOVT
  67. 2015 (8) TMI 1363 - CGOVT
  68. 2015 (8) TMI 1329 - CGOVT
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Validity of the exemption notifications issued under Rule 8.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) & (g) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Rule 8, arguing that it vests the Government with unguided power to exempt any goods from excise duty, thus being discriminatory. However, the court held that Rule 8 is part of the statute and is valid. It is within the legislative competence to decide the incidence and amount of taxation. The court emphasized that the State has the authority to tax certain classes of goods and exempt others, based on well-recognized principles aimed at promoting welfare and supporting small producers and cottage industries, as outlined in the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 48 of the Constitution.

2. Validity of the Exemption Notifications Issued Under Rule 8:
The petitioners contended that the exemption notifications were invalid as they allegedly favored certain classes of persons rather than classes of goods. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the exemption is related to the goods produced by specific persons (i.e., members of co-operative societies) and not a personal tax exemption. The notifications were found to be within the terms of Rule 8 and the Act, and thus valid. The court noted that the exemptions aimed to protect small producers from unreasonable competition from larger establishments, which is a valid classification.

3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) & (g) of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the exemptions granted to the Society violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) & (g). The court held that the exemptions did not violate these rights as they were based on a valid classification intended to support small-scale and cottage industries. The differentiation between large producers and small weavers was justified, given the latter's economic and operational disadvantages. The court emphasized that the State's policy to promote self-employment and small-scale industries through such exemptions was constitutionally valid and did not constitute discrimination.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 8 and the validity of the exemption notifications issued under it. The exemptions were deemed to be in line with the State's policy to support small producers and did not infringe upon the petitioners' fundamental rights. The petitioners were ordered to bear the costs of the respondents.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates