2000 (9) TMI 74 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the condition requiring tea factories to have operated for at least six months during 1998-99 to qualify for excise duty exemption.
2. Whether the condition is arbitrary and lacks nexus to the object to be achieved.
3. The court's power to interfere with policy decisions of the government.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Condition:
The petitioners challenged the condition in Notification No. 41/99-Central Excise, dated 26-11-1999, which required tea factories to have operated for at least six months during 1998-99 to qualify for excise duty exemption for the financial year 1999-2000. The petitioners argued that this condition was arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14 read with Article 39(c) of the Constitution of India. They contended that the restriction had no nexus to the object to be achieved and was unreasonable. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel defended the condition, stating that it was intended to encourage old existing factories and ensure continuous production.

2. Nexus to the Object to be Achieved:
The petitioners argued that the condition had no nexus to the objective of encouraging the industry and tea cultivation by small tea farmers. They pointed out that a factory running for six months during 1998-99 might not necessarily continue production in subsequent years, whereas factories running continuously but not meeting the six-month criterion were unfairly excluded from the exemption. The court examined the rationale provided by the respondents, which emphasized that the condition aimed to secure exemptions for factories engaged in tea manufacturing as their principal activity for a considerable period, thereby promoting the interest of small tea growers and addressing the fall in Indian tea exports.

3. Court's Power to Interfere with Policy Decisions:
The court cited several precedents to establish that in matters of economic regulation and taxation, the legislature is granted a wide latitude. It emphasized that the presumption of constitutionality is strong and that courts should defer to legislative judgment in economic matters. The court referred to the decisions in Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, R.K. Garg v. Union of India, and Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Kerala, which upheld the principle that economic legislation should be viewed with greater latitude and that courts should not interfere with legislative wisdom unless the classification is palpably arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the condition requiring tea factories to have operated for at least six months during 1998-99 was based on valid reasons and was not arbitrary. It held that the classification made by the government for granting excise duty exemption was on acceptable principles and aimed to help long-established tea manufacturing factories. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the classification was without any basis or discriminatory. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the impugned notification.