1980 (1) TMI 197 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to an order requiring the issuance of Transit Notes by Sattadars for transporting unlabelled biris; Jurisdiction of authorities to pass the order; Alleged violation of Central Excise Rules; Allegation of arbitrary and unreasonable restriction violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Authorities:
The petitioner argued that the order in question could only be made by the State Government under section 44 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. However, the respondents contended that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, empowered the Central Government to issue such orders under the Central Excise Rules. The Court found that the direction in question was authorized under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules made thereunder. The petitioner failed to establish any relevance of the Acts cited by them to the present case, leading to the dismissal of this argument.

2. Violation of Central Excise Rules:
The petitioner alleged that the order violated Rules 176, 178, and 180 of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Court noted that these rules pertained to licensing procedures, which were not the subject of the impugned order. As such, the Court found no merit in this argument and dismissed it.

3. Constitutional Challenge - Article 19:
The main contention was that the requirement of Transit Notes imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade, violating Article 19 of the Constitution. The petitioner claimed that illiterate Sattadars were unable to comply with this requirement. The Court, however, found no merit in this claim, noting that Sattadars were already required by law to maintain registers. The Court held that the requirement of Transit Notes was in the public interest to prevent duty evasion by merchants. Citing precedent, the Court ruled that such requirements were not unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, ultimately rejecting the petitioner's argument.

4. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ application, ruling against the petitioner on all grounds. The Court found the order for Transit Notes issuance to be valid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and not in violation of Central Excise Rules or constitutional provisions. The application was dismissed without costs.