1982 (3) TMI 67 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 137 of 1981 issued by the Central Government.
2. Conditions imposed under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Relevance of the material used for matchbox packaging to the excise duty exemption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notification No. 137 of 1981 issued by the Central Government:
The petitioners, who are manufacturers of matches without the aid of power (non-mechanized sector manufacturers), challenged the validity of Notification No. 137 of 1981. This notification amended the excise duty rates and conditions for matches packed in boxes made with cardboard. The petitioners argued that the conditions imposed were not germane or relevant to the excisable commodity, i.e., matches, and thus exceeded the Central Government's powers under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. Conditions imposed under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The court examined the scope of Rule 8, which allows the Central Government to exempt any excisable goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable, subject to specified conditions. The petitioners contended that the conditions related to the packaging material (cardboard) were not relevant to the match sticks themselves, which are the subject of excise duty under Item 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. Relevance of the material used for matchbox packaging to the excise duty exemption:
The court analyzed whether the conditions related to the use of cardboard for matchbox packaging were relevant to the excise duty exemption. The petitioners argued that the definition of 'matches' under Item 38 does not include the boxes in which they are packed. However, the court noted that the definition of 'matches' is inclusive and that matches without a container box are not consumable. The court also pointed out that Rules 62 and 63 of the Central Excise Rules contemplate the manufacture and sale of matches only in boxes and booklets.

The court further observed that the cost of packaging is considered in the valuation of excisable goods under Section 4 of the Act. The court upheld the Central Government's policy to grant exemptions based on the material used for packaging, considering it relevant to the exemption and consistent with the provisions and purposes of the Act. The court noted that the policy of the Government might vary based on economic factors and that the courts should not question the wisdom of such policies as long as the conditions imposed are relevant to the exemption.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the differential duty based on the use of cardboard boxes is authorized by Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The conditions imposed by Notification No. 137 of 1981 were neither arbitrary nor irrational and were relevant to the exemption granted. The rule nisi was discharged, and there was no order as to costs.