1996 (7) TMI 568 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 7-B-1-38-91-CTD-V dated 27th March, 1995.
2. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 301, 302, and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.
3. Discrimination under Section 27-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915.
4. Authority for issuance of the impugned notification.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notification No. 7-B-1-38-91-CTD-V dated 27th March, 1995:
The petitioner challenged the notification introducing a new licence in form FL-8A with an annual fee of Rs. 20,000/- and a bottling fee, arguing it was ultra vires Articles 14, 301, 302, and 304(a) of the Constitution. The notification applied to units franchised for bottling specific brands of IMFL by licensees outside Madhya Pradesh.

2. Alleged Violation of Articles 14, 301, 302, and 304(a) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that local distillers were exempted from the bottling fee, whereas franchisees had to pay Rs. 5/- per bottle or Rs. 15/- per proof litre, thus violating Article 301 and discriminating against similar entities. However, the Court found that the classification between local manufacturers and franchisees was rational and aimed at preventing revenue loss due to evasion of import fees.

3. Discrimination under Section 27-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915:
Section 27-A(3) prohibits discriminatory duties between locally manufactured goods and those produced elsewhere. The Court held that the notification did not violate this section as it created a reasonable classification between local manufacturers and those operating under franchise agreements. The classification was deemed necessary to prevent revenue loss and was not discriminatory.

4. Authority for Issuance of the Impugned Notification:
The State Government's authority to issue the notification was upheld under Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, which empowers it to make rules regarding the terms and conditions of licences. The bottling fee was considered a fee, not an excise duty, and thus within the State's legislative competence under Entry 8 and Entry 66 of List-II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the notification as a valid exercise of the State's legislative power and finding no violation of constitutional provisions or Section 27-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915.