1963 (10) TMI 2 - SC - Central Excise

Whether on the issue of a licence in From L-6 under the Central Excise Rules, they acquired a right to obtain from any distillery power alcohol required by them for their business without complying with the Rules regulating the issue of excisable articles in operation in the State of Uttar Pradesh? Held that - The validity of Chapter IX of the U.P. Excise Manual which has been incorporated by Rule 10 in the Rules framed under the Indian Power Alcohol Act, has not been challenged before us. It is true that the petitioners had, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution a fundamental right to carry on business of manufacture of Thinners. But that fundamental right is subject to restrictions prescribed under the Indian Power Alcohol Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The reasonableness of those restrictions has not been challenged before us. The only argument advanced by the petitioners in support of the petition is that the Central Government having granted a licence in Form L-6 no further conditions could be imposed restricting the right of the petitioners to obtain power alcohol required by them for the purpose of their business. That contention on the Rules framed under the Power Alcohol Act is wholly unwarranted, and must be rejected. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the requirement for a permit under the U.P. Excise Act to obtain power alcohol despite holding a Central Excise licence.
2. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Applicability of the Indian Power Alcohol Act and the U.P. Excise Manual to the petitioners' business operations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Requirement for a Permit under the U.P. Excise Act:
The petitioners argued that their Central Excise licence in Form L-6 exempted them from needing a permit under the U.P. Excise Act to obtain power alcohol. However, the court clarified that the licence merely exempted them from paying excise duty but did not obviate the necessity of complying with the Indian Power Alcohol Act and the U.P. Excise Manual. The court stated, "The licence in Form L-6 under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, issued to the petitioners merely authorised them to obtain without payment of duty power alcohol for industrial purposes. But the issue of such a licence did not obviate the necessity of complying with the relevant provisions made under the Indian Power Alcohol Act."

2. Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g):
The petitioners claimed that their fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) was infringed upon by the requirement to obtain a permit. The court found this contention to be without merit, stating, "The contention of the petitioners that since they obtained a licence in Form L-6 under the Central Excises Act they were entitled to obtain the quantity of power alcohol required for the purpose of their business without any restriction as to the quantity or the conditions as to obtaining permits is therefore wholly without substance." The court further noted that the fundamental right to carry on business is subject to reasonable restrictions, which were not challenged for their reasonableness in this case.

3. Applicability of the Indian Power Alcohol Act and the U.P. Excise Manual:
The court reviewed the relevant statutory provisions and rules, noting that the Indian Power Alcohol Act and the U.P. Excise Manual regulate the manufacture, production, and disposal of power alcohol. The court highlighted that "power alcohol may be issued to a consumer direct from a distillery as provided by the proviso to Rule 33 of the Power Alcohol Rules, and to the issue of power alcohol from a distillery in the State of U.P., Chapter IX of the Excise Manual which contains the relevant rules framed under the U.P. Excise Act applies." The court concluded that the petitioners were required to comply with these provisions and that the Excise authorities acted according to law by requiring the petitioners to obtain the necessary permits.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioners' arguments were without substance and that the Excise authorities acted within the law. The court stated, "The petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs."