9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the imposition of different rates of excise duty on cold rolled strips compared to hot rolled strips. 2. Allegation of unauthorized, ultra vires, and violative distinction between cold rolled and hot rolled strips. 3. Constitutionality of the distinction in excise duty rates between hot and cold rolled strips. Analysis: The petitioner, a manufacturer of cold rolled strips, challenged the imposition of Rs. 650/- per metric tonne excise duty on cold rolled strips while hot rolled strips exceeding 5 mm in thickness were subjected to a lower rate of Rs. 330/- per metric tonne. The petitioner argued that both hot and cold rolled strips should be treated as one excisable article under the law, making it impermissible for the exemption-granting authority to differentiate between them. However, the Court held that the rule empowering exemption (Rule 8) allows the Central Government to grant exemptions to excisable goods, including both hot and cold rolled strips. The Tariff Item itself recognizes both types of strips as excisable commodities, rejecting the petitioner's argument that a new distinction was created by the exemption authority. The Court emphasized that treating cold rolled strips as hot rolled strips for excise duty purposes would lead to the quashing of the entire exemption, which was not the petitioner's intention. Therefore, the Court dismissed this argument. The petitioner also contended that the differing rates of excise duty on hot and cold strips amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the distinction between hot and cold strips was arbitrary or discriminatory. As a result, the Court rejected this argument as well. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the imposition of Rs. 650/- per metric tonne on cold rolled strips and ordering the petitioner to pay costs amounting to Advocate's fee of Rs. 250/-.
|
