9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Notification under Central Excise Rules exempting certain factories from excise duty based on the number of workers employed. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contested a notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, granting exemption to specific categories of factories from excise duty, excluding the petitioner's factory, which manufactures agricultural implements and had employed more than 49 workers in the 12 months preceding the notification. 2. The Finance Act of 1975 introduced a new Tariff Item No. 68, making all goods manufactured in a factory liable to excise duty at 1% ad valorem, with exemptions proposed by the Finance Minister for factories employing fewer workers for administrative convenience, as stated in the Budget Speech. 3. The petitioner argued that the notification did not align with the Finance Minister's speech, which mentioned exemptions for factories with specific worker thresholds, contending that the speech did not form the basis for granting exemptions, and only a notification under Rule 8 could provide such relief. 4. The notification, issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, exempted factories with a certain number of workers from excise duty under Item No. 68, based on the worker count in the preceding 12 months, leading to the petitioner's factory not qualifying for the exemption due to exceeding the worker limit. 5. The court analyzed the validity of the notification in light of the Excise Act and Rules, emphasizing that the Finance Minister's speech did not hold legislative weight, and exemptions could only be granted through official notifications under Rule 8, with manufacturers not having an inherent right to exemption. 6. The classification based on the number of workers in the notification was deemed reasonable, akin to previous Supreme Court judgments on similar classifications under the Excise Act, ensuring that factories falling under specific worker thresholds were subject to excise duty, with no retrospective effect in the levy of duty. 7. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions, as the notification's classification based on the number of workers in the preceding 12 months aligned with the Excise Act's provisions and did not amount to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.
|
