1991 (10) TMI 57 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Implementation of circulars for clearance of Fluidised Bed Combustion Boilers.
3. Quashing of circular dated 8-6-1990 issued under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the validity of Section 37B
The petitioner challenged the validity of Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, arguing that it empowers the Central Board to interfere with quasi-judicial functions regarding classification, which should be struck down as unconstitutional. However, the court disagreed with this contention, citing a previous unreported decision by Kanakaraj, J., and various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court. The court held that a circular under Section 37B cannot override the powers of quasi-judicial authorities applying statutory provisions. It further emphasized that a statute can be interpreted in a manner to make it constitutionally valid, and Section 37B was deemed valid based on this principle. The court concluded that any direction issued under Section 37B cannot impede the powers of quasi-judicial authorities, and the section was not found to be ultra vires of the Constitution.

Issue 2: Implementation of circulars for clearance of Fluidised Bed Combustion Boilers
The petitioner sought directions to implement circulars related to the clearance of Fluidised Bed Combustion Boilers and to confer benefits under specific notifications. However, the court did not find it necessary to issue a writ of mandamus for this purpose. Instead, it suggested that the petitioner raise the issue of promissory estoppel before the relevant authorities. The court emphasized that the authorities should consider the arguments based on promissory estoppel if raised by the petitioner.

Issue 3: Quashing of circular dated 8-6-1990
The petitioner also filed a writ petition to quash a circular dated 8-6-1990 issued under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court had already held that Section 37B was valid and needed to be read down. Consequently, the court ruled that the circular dated 8-6-1990 could not bind authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions under the Act. Therefore, the petition to quash the circular was dismissed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 37B, emphasizing the petitioner's right to raise objections before the authorities, including invoking promissory estoppel. The court granted the petitioner additional time to file detailed objections before the authorities.