1980 (6) TMI 40 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether Trade Notice requiring Takedars to obtain Form No. L-IV license is legal and applicable to them.
2. Whether Takedars can be considered manufacturers of excisable goods.
3. Whether the requirement for Takedars to obtain a license is discriminatory.
4. Whether the distinction made in Trade Notice No. 200/79 between Takedars is reasonable.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitions challenged Trade Notice Nos. 135/79 and 200/79, requiring Takedars to obtain Form No. L-IV license. The petitioners argued that they are not manufacturers under the Act and that Katcha biris are not excisable goods. The legality of this requirement was the main challenge in the petitions.
2. The Central Government contended that Takedars are manufacturers as per Section 2 of the Act, and biris are excisable goods listed in the First Schedule. The requirement for a license was justified based on the volume of biris cleared in a year.
3. The Court referred to relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing the definition of excisable goods and the necessity for a license for manufacturers. It concluded that biris are excisable goods, and Takedars engaging in the process are considered manufacturers.
4. The Court rejected the argument of discrimination in the license requirement, noting the exemption for biris cleared up to 60 lakhs and the need for control over higher volumes. It also found the distinction in Trade Notice No. 200/79 between Takedars reasonable based on the manufacturing process at their premises.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the requirement for Takedars to obtain a Form No. L-IV license and follow excise procedures. The judgment affirmed that Takedars engaging in the process of rolling tobacco into biris are considered manufacturers of excisable goods, and the notices were not discriminatory.