2008 (4) TMI 675 - SC - Central Excise

Whether appropriate writ order or direction incorporation of Sec. 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Excise Act may be declared ultra-vires and be struck down? Held that - The amendments introduced are regulatory in nature and cannot be regarded as violative of freedom guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution. Article 300-A is not attracted and deprivation is in exercise of police power and said article enjoins that such deprivation should not be without sanction of law. There are similar provisions in the Excise Acts of other States for example the Tamil Nadu Excise Act 1971 Karnataka Excise Act 1965 Uttar Pradesh Excise Act 1910 and the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968. The provisions are in Sections 4 and 14A of the Tamil Nadu Act Sections 43A and 43B of the Karnataka Act Section 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Act and Sections 46 and 46A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the appeals are without merit deserve dismissal.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.
2. Constitutionality of Section 9B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.
3. Validity of the order dated 16.5.2000 passed by respondent No. 2.
4. Jurisdiction of criminal courts in relation to the amended provisions.
5. Alleged repugnancy with Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 301 of the Constitution.
6. Legislative competence of the State Government under the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950:
The appellants challenged these provisions on the grounds that they were contrary to Article 254 of the Constitution and lacked the President's assent. They argued that the provisions conferred unguided powers on the Excise Authorities and took away the remedy of judicial review. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the amendments were regulatory in nature and did not violate Article 301 of the Constitution. The Court referenced similar provisions in other state excise acts and concluded that the amendments were within the legislative competence of the State Government.

2. Constitutionality of Section 9B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950:
Section 9B, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits or proceedings to set aside or modify orders passed under the Act, was also challenged. The Supreme Court held that this provision was valid and within the legislative competence of the State Government. The Court cited the case of P.N. Krishna Lal & Ors. v. Govt. of Kerala & Anr., which held that state legislatures are competent to enact laws under Entry 8 read with Entries 64 and 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and the assent of the President was not necessary.

3. Validity of the order dated 16.5.2000 passed by respondent No. 2:
The appellants sought to have this order declared invalid. The Supreme Court did not find merit in this contention, as the order was passed under the valid provisions of the amended Act. The Court emphasized that the amendments were aimed at curbing unauthorized transportation of excisable articles and were necessary to prevent the misuse of vehicles for such activities.

4. Jurisdiction of criminal courts in relation to the amended provisions:
The appellants argued that the amendments curtailed the powers of criminal courts under Sections 451 to 457 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noted that the amended Section 69(6) specifically excluded the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or other authority to make orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, or release of seized conveyances. The Court referenced the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which has similar provisions, and held that the amendments were valid and did not infringe upon the jurisdiction of criminal courts.

5. Alleged repugnancy with Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 301 of the Constitution:
The appellants contended that the amendments were unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of these articles. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, stating that the amendments were regulatory and aimed at preventing the misuse of vehicles for unauthorized transportation of excisable articles. The Court held that the provisions did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

6. Legislative competence of the State Government under the Constitution:
The respondent-State argued that the Act was within the legislative competence of the State Government under Item 8 read with Items 64 and 65 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed, citing the case of P.N. Krishna Lal & Ors. v. Govt. of Kerala & Anr., which held that state legislatures are competent to enact laws regulating the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase, and sale of intoxicating liquors.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the challenged provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. The Court held that the amendments were within the legislative competence of the State Government, were regulatory in nature, and did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the amendments were necessary to curb unauthorized transportation of excisable articles and prevent the misuse of vehicles for such activities.

← Previous Next →