9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of Rule 9 in Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982. Challenge against orders declining permission for consumption of specified yarn without excise duty, specifying place for manufacture of yarn, and creating liability as per statutory provisions. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 9 in Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982. They contested orders declining permission for consuming specified yarn without excise duty, specifying the place for yarn manufacture, and creating liability as per statutory provisions. The petitioners argued that the amended Rule 9 conferred discriminatory discretions on excise authorities, violating various constitutional articles and statutory provisions. They also claimed that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 imposing additional excise duty retrospectively was beyond legislative competence. However, the Court noted that similar pleas were addressed in a previous judgment, J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, where the validity of Rules 9 and 49 was upheld, making intermediate goods liable for duty even in continuous processes. The retrospective effect of Section 51 was also deemed valid in that case. The Court found that the impugned orders, including declining exemption from excise duty on yarn, specifying the manufacturing place, and other excise authorities' actions, were in accordance with valid statutory provisions and thus legally sound. The Court relied on the precedent set by the J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills case, which addressed similar issues raised in the present petition. Consequently, the Court concluded that the decision in the previous case was applicable to the current petition and resolved all the raised pleas. In response to the petitioners' request for payment flexibility or extension, the Court dismissed the plea, noting that excise duty and penalty recovery had been stayed during the petition's pendency. The Court highlighted that the revenue had not received its dues for several years due to the stay order. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it without costs, denying further concessions to the petitioners.
|
