9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 8(1)(a) of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952. 2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(a) to coal consumed by the appellant in its own power house. 3. Legislative competence of Parliament to impose the excise duty under the Constitution. 4. Method of collection of the duty by the Coal Board. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Section 8(1)(a) of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952: The primary issue was whether Section 8(1)(a) of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952, which imposes a duty of excise on all coal raised and despatched from collieries in India, is a valid piece of legislation. The appellant argued that the duty imposed was not authorized by the Constitution and thus the section was invalid. The court held that the imposition of the duty is authorized by Entry No. 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which allows Parliament to make laws regarding duties of excise on goods manufactured or produced in India. Coal, being a material or commodity, falls within this definition. The court concluded that the duty imposed by Section 8(1)(a) is valid under Entry No. 84. 2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(a) to coal consumed by the appellant in its own power house: The court examined whether the duty applied to coal consumed by the appellant in its own power house. The appellant contended that the duty should not apply to coal consumed internally and that the section did not intend to cover such coal. The court held that the term "despatched" in Section 8(1)(a) implies sending coal from one place to another, and in the context of the appellant's operations, coal moved from the colliery to the power house within the same compound cannot be considered "despatched." Therefore, the court concluded that the duty under Section 8(1)(a) does not apply to coal consumed by the appellant in its own power house. 3. Legislative competence of Parliament to impose the excise duty under the Constitution: The appellant argued that no entry in the Legislative Lists authorized Parliament to impose an excise duty on coal raised from mines. The court rejected this argument, stating that Entry No. 84 of List I clearly authorizes the levy of duties of excise on goods produced in India. The court also clarified that coal, despite being a natural product, requires significant human activity to be brought to a usable state, and thus can be considered "produced" for the purposes of excise duty. The court held that the duty imposed by Section 8(1)(a) is within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry No. 84. 4. Method of collection of the duty by the Coal Board: The appellant contended that the provision for the collection of the duty by the Coal Board was invalid, arguing that under Article 272 of the Constitution, Union duties of excise should be levied and collected by the Government of India. The court held that the Act and the rules framed under it provide for the collection of the duty by the Government or its agents, including the Coal Board. The court found no substance in the appellant's contention and upheld the validity of the collection method prescribed by the Act and the rules. Conclusion: The court allowed the appellant's application to the extent that a writ of mandamus would direct the respondent to forbear from levying and collecting any duty of excise under Section 8(1)(a) on coal taken from the appellant's colliery to its power house within the same compound for consumption therein. The court set aside the judgment and order of the trial judge, and there was no order for costs.
|
