1964 (1) TMI 3 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Misconceived petition challenging excise duty levy on "M. G. White Poster Paper."
2. Validity of demand notice issued by Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise.
3. Finding of Collector of Central Excise regarding classification of paper under entry 17(4).
4. Allegation of ignoring communication from Central Board of Revenue.
5. Competence of Central Excise Authority to levy additional duty retrospectively.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a paper manufacturer, challenged the excise duty levy on "M. G. White Poster Paper" from 1959 to 1961 under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Authorities claimed short-levy under entry 17(4) instead of entry 17(3), leading to a demand notice for additional duty. The petitioner appealed to higher authorities and eventually approached the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the initial intimation by the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise.

2. The High Court noted that the impugned letter was not a judicial order affecting the petitioner's rights but a mere intimation of the authorities' opinion on the classification of the paper. The actual grievance was the demand notice issued subsequently, which was not challenged in the petition. Therefore, the Court held that the intimation could not be quashed under Art. 226.

3. The Collector of Central Excise had determined that the paper fell within entry 17(4) after examining samples and evidence. The Court emphasized that this finding was a matter of fact supported by valid reasons, and there was no apparent error in the Collector's order. The correctness of this factual finding could not be re-evaluated in the present proceedings.

4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the authorities ignored a communication from the Central Board of Revenue, but since the letter was not presented, the Court could not consider this contention. The Court suggested that if there was merit in this argument, the petitioner should have pursued revision under Section 36 of the Act.

5. The petitioner contended that the Central Excise Authority lacked the competence to levy additional duty retrospectively. However, the Court pointed out that Rule 10 of the Central Excise Act allowed for such levies, and the petitioner did not challenge the validity of this rule. Therefore, the Authority was deemed competent to impose the additional duty, irrespective of the manufacturer's inability to pass on the duty to customers.

6. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the grounds raised were not sufficient to challenge the excise duty levy on the "M. G. White Poster Paper." The petitioner was also directed to bear the costs of the proceedings.