|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81241 to 81260 of 81330 Records
-
1964 (11) TMI 2
Issues:
1. Conviction under sections 471 and 473 read with sections 466 and 474 I.P.C.
2. Conviction under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Challenge to the evidence of recovery.
4. Allegation of dishonest motives against excise officers.
5. Admissibility of confession made at the time of arrest.
6. Sentencing considerations.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant was convicted under sections 471 and 473 read with sections 466 and 474 I.P.C. and under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appellant was caught traveling in a truck carrying contraband tobacco without the required permit. The evidence included the recovery of incriminating items from the appellant, such as forged documents and rubber stamps. The trial court found the case against the appellant established beyond a reasonable doubt based on witness statements and evidence presented.
2. The challenge to the evidence of recovery was made based on minor contradictions regarding the place of arrest and the conduct of excise officers. The appellant tried to dispute the place of arrest to undermine the prosecution's case. However, the Sessions Judge concluded that the employees of the Municipal Board may have been influenced to aid the appellant in falsifying evidence. The witnesses at the toll barriers were summoned again to clarify discrepancies, leading to a notice being issued against one witness for fabricating evidence.
3. An allegation of dishonest motives against excise officers was raised due to the seizure of a sum of money from the appellant. The argument suggested that the officers' actions were dishonest, but the court found that the money was handled appropriately and deposited as per procedure. The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding honesty and scrutinizing allegations of dishonesty against officers diligently.
4. The admissibility of the confession made by the appellant at the time of arrest was debated. The State argued for its use as evidence, citing precedents. However, the court ruled that the confession made to the Superintendent of Central Excise could not be used as evidence. The court clarified the role of Excise Officers in investigations and upheld the exclusion of the confession from evidence.
5. Regarding sentencing considerations, the appellant's age and lack of previous offenses were taken into account. The court modified the sentences, reducing the rigorous imprisonment from two years to six months and increasing the fine. The appellant was given an opportunity for reform, and the appeal was dismissed with the modified sentencing terms. Additionally, a notice was issued against a witness for fabricating evidence and giving false testimony.
This detailed analysis encompasses the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, covering the convictions, challenges to evidence, allegations against officers, admissibility of confession, and sentencing considerations.
-
1964 (10) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of earlier writ applications
2. Licensing restrictions for medicinal preparations
3. Authority and powers of the Board of Revenue
4. Compliance with the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and Rules
5. Validity of restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India
6. Examination of statutory provisions and rules
7. Prevention of misuse of medicinal preparations
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Dismissal of Earlier Writ Applications:
The court noted that the current writ applications are the aftermath of the judgment in O.P. Nos. 891 and 1064 of 1963, which were dismissed as infructuous. The petitioners were permitted to move the court afresh regarding licenses for the year 1964-65. The petitioners have challenged these licenses in the present petitions.
2. Licensing Restrictions for Medicinal Preparations:
The petitioners, engaged in the production of medicinal preparations since 1959, alleged that their license applications for 1963-64 were partially granted and totally denied for certain items. The Board of Revenue issued licenses only to a limited extent based on orders Exts. P4 and P5. The court noted that the Board of Revenue has the powers of the Excise Commissioner.
3. Authority and Powers of the Board of Revenue:
The Board of Revenue imposed restrictions on the manufacture of spirituous medicinal preparations, citing allegations of misuse as substitutes for alcohol. The Board decided that only specific items recommended by the Director of Health Services would be allowed for manufacture or import. Ext. P4 initially allowed 15 items, later modified by Ext. P5 to allow 48 items classified into two groups, A and B. The court examined whether these restrictions were justified.
4. Compliance with the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and Rules:
The court examined Section 6 of the Act and Rule 84 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. Section 6 provides that no person shall engage in the production of dutiable goods without a license, which shall be subject to restrictions and conditions. Rule 84 allows the licensing authority to grant licenses upon satisfaction of compliance with conditions. The court found no provision in the Act or Rules suggesting control over the articles to be produced or the quantum to be manufactured.
5. Validity of Restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners contended that any power to impose such restrictions would be violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. The court, however, focused on whether the Act and Rules provided such power, without addressing the constitutional validity of the provisions.
6. Examination of Statutory Provisions and Rules:
The court referred to the form of license (Form A L-1) and noted that it specifies the list of preparations authorized to be manufactured. The court found that the statute provides for regulation to ensure the collection of duty but does not confer power to control the quantum or number of articles manufactured. The court also referred to Section 19(2)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, which relate to the place of manufacture and regulation for duty collection, supporting the view that the Act does not provide for the restrictions imposed by the Board of Revenue.
7. Prevention of Misuse of Medicinal Preparations:
The court acknowledged that the restrictions were imposed to prevent misuse of medicinal preparations, which could undermine prohibition efforts. However, the court emphasized that misuse should be prevented by enforcing the Act and Rules, not by restricting the number and quantity of preparations manufactured. The court cited a Bombay High Court decision, approved by the Supreme Court, which held that legitimate use of medicinal and toilet preparations should not be prevented.
Conclusion:
The court declared that the limitations introduced by Exts. P4 and P5 were without the authority of law. The applications for licenses must be dealt with in accordance with the statute, unhampered by the restrictions in Exts. P4 and P5. The petitioners were allowed to renew their applications, and the writ applications were allowed without any order as to costs.
-
1964 (10) TMI 4
Issues:
1. Interpretation of rules regarding excise duty on package tea manufacturing.
2. Allegations of evasion of excise duty by not bringing all loose tea purchases into licensed premises.
3. Legal obligation of a licensee to bring all purchases of loose tea into licensed premises.
4. Authority of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to impose duty and penalty based on speculation.
5. Compliance with Central Excise Rules regarding manufacturing and removal of package tea.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of rules concerning excise duty on package tea manufacturing. The petitioner, a holder of an L-4 license for manufacturing package tea, was required to bring all loose tea purchases into the licensed premises for packaging, subject to excise duty upon removal. The process of packaging is considered manufacturing under the Act, attracting excise duty upon removal from the premises.
2. The issue of alleged evasion of excise duty arose as the petitioner also dealt in loose tea outside the licensed premises. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise suspected that the petitioner may have converted loose tea into package tea without paying the required duty. A show cause notice was issued based on this suspicion, leading to the imposition of duty and penalty by the Assistant Collector.
3. The legal obligation of the licensee to bring all loose tea purchases into the licensed premises was contested. The rules cited by the Department's counsel did not explicitly mandate such an obligation. While the rules aimed to prevent duty evasion, there was no provision restricting a licensee from dealing in loose tea outside the licensed premises.
4. The judgment questioned the Assistant Collector's authority to impose duty and penalty solely based on speculation, without concrete evidence of the petitioner dealing with the tea as package tea. The absence of material showing such dealings rendered the imposition of duty and penalty illegal.
5. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the Assistant Collector's order and making the rule absolute with no costs. The judgment emphasized that as per the existing rules, a licensed manufacturer was not prohibited from dealing in loose tea outside the licensed premises, provided there was no evidence of converting it into package tea to evade excise duty.
-
1964 (7) TMI 56
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners are manufacturers of cotton fabrics as defined in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the cotton fabrics in question attract the provisions of Rules 7 and 9 of the Central Excise Rules or enjoy exemption under Rule 8.
3. Whether the petitioner can be considered a manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Act.
4. Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Act and Rules 7 and 9.
5. Applicability of Rule 10 regarding the time-barred nature of the demand.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Manufacturer Definition under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:
The court examined whether the petitioners could be considered manufacturers under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners argued that they were not manufacturers, but the societies were. The court found that the petitioners got the goods manufactured by supplying yarn and paying weaving charges to the societies. The court concluded that the petitioners were indeed manufacturers as they engaged in the production or manufacture of goods intended for sale, even if the actual manufacturing was done by the societies.
2. Applicability of Rules 7 and 9 or Exemption under Rule 8:
The court examined whether the cotton fabrics manufactured by the petitioners attracted the provisions of Rules 7 and 9 or enjoyed exemption under Rule 8. The petitioners argued that the goods were exempt under the notification dated April 30, 1960. The court analyzed the notification and concluded that the exemption applied only to goods produced by the society through its members on looms either owned by the society or its members or allotted to such members. Since the petitioners got the goods manufactured through the societies, the exemption did not apply, and the goods attracted the provisions of Rules 7 and 9.
3. Manufacturer Definition under Section 2(f) of the Act:
The court examined the definition of "manufacturer" under Section 2(f) of the Act. The court held that the definition of "manufacturer" includes anyone who engages in the production or manufacture of goods on their own account if these goods are intended for sale. The court concluded that the petitioners, by engaging the societies to manufacture goods from the raw materials supplied by them and paying only weaving charges, were manufacturers under Section 2(f) of the Act.
4. Constitutional Validity of Section 3 and Rules 7 and 9:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Act and Rules 7 and 9, arguing that they imposed unreasonable and excessive restrictions on their right to trade and hold property. The court examined the scheme of the Act and the rules and concluded that the provisions did not impose unreasonable restrictions. The court noted that the Act and rules provided a detailed machinery for assessment, right to raise objections, and right of appeal and revision. The court held that the provisions did not violate Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
5. Applicability of Rule 10 Regarding Time-Barred Nature of the Demand:
The petitioners argued that the demand for duty under Rule 9(2) was time-barred under Rule 10. The court held that Rule 10 did not apply to the case as it postulates an assessment resulting in short levy through inadvertence, error, collusion, or misconstruction. The demand in the present case was made under Rule 9(2) for goods removed clandestinely without assessment and payment of duty. Therefore, Rule 10 did not apply, and the demand was not time-barred.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners were manufacturers under the Act, the goods attracted the provisions of Rules 7 and 9, the provisions of Section 3 and Rules 7 and 9 were constitutionally valid, and the demand was not time-barred under Rule 10.
-
1964 (7) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners were denied the opportunity to show cause due to the premature decision and assessment made by the Deputy Superintendent.
2. Whether the order dated January 28, 1963, was made in violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Whether the petitioners were incapacitated from showing proper cause due to denial of access to the seized records and account books.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Denial of Opportunity to Show Cause Due to Premature Decision and Assessment:
The petitioners argued that the notice to show cause was received on September 30, 1963, and they had until October 11, 1963, to respond. However, before they could show cause, the Deputy Superintendent issued a demand notice, which they claimed was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The judgment acknowledged that the Deputy Superintendent acted hastily and with a prejudged mindset. However, since the Deputy Superintendent was not the adjudicating authority, this premature action did not ultimately prejudice the petitioners. The adjudicating authority, the Collector of Central Excise, provided the petitioners with an extension of time, considered their written explanation, granted a personal hearing, and delivered a reasoned order. Therefore, the charge of violation of natural justice principles was not upheld.
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contended that the order dated January 28, 1963, was made in violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the Collector of Central Excise, who was the adjudicating authority, provided the petitioners with ample opportunity to present their case. The petitioners were allowed to submit their written explanation, request for a personal hearing was granted, and their counsel made submissions before the Collector. The Collector considered the objections and delivered a reasoned order. Hence, the court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated by the respondent Collector.
3. Denial of Access to Seized Records and Account Books:
The petitioners claimed that they were deprived of the opportunity to formulate their objections due to denial of access to the seized records and account books. The court examined the allegations and found that the petitioners did not demand the production of the seized books and documents during the adjudication proceedings or at any time prior to that. The affidavit-in-opposition stated that the petitioners did not ask for the examination of the seized books before the order was passed. The court noted that if the petitioners had made such a demand and it was refused, they might have suffered difficulties in explaining the charges. However, since no such demand was made, this point was not upheld.
Additional Observations:
The court criticized the Deputy Superintendent for his over-enthusiastic and thoughtless actions, which provided the petitioners with an excuse to move the court. However, since the Collector of Central Excise independently adjudicated the matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the Deputy Superintendent's actions did not ultimately prejudice the petitioners. The court expressed disapproval of the Deputy Superintendent's conduct but did not attribute mala fides to him.
Conclusion:
The court discharged the rule and declined to interfere with the order dated January 28, 1963. No order as to costs was made.
-
1964 (7) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Challenge to the revised demand for duty on patent and proprietary medicines.
2. Exemption of duty for mixtures of drugs recognized by pharmacopoeias.
3. Allegation of discriminatory taxing statute violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the revised duty demand on patent medicines before the Assistant Collector Central Excise. The demand was upheld, prompting the appellant to challenge its validity and legality. The appellant's arguments were narrowed down to two points during the appeal. Firstly, it was argued that mixtures of drugs recognized by specific pharmacopoeias should be exempt from duty. However, this argument was raised for the first time during the hearing and lacked supporting evidence regarding the nature of the medicines in question. The definition of patent or proprietary medicines under the Drugs Act, 1940 was discussed, emphasizing that compounds of recognized drugs may still fall under the duty charge unless separately recognized in the pharmacopoeias.
2. The second point raised was the alleged discriminatory nature of the taxing statute under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance Act, 1961. The argument suggested that levying duty on unrecognized mixtures while exempting recognized drugs was unconstitutional under Article 14. The court dismissed this argument, noting that it was not raised earlier in the proceedings and lacked evidence to prove the alleged discrimination. The court highlighted the need for the appellant to demonstrate that the taxed mixtures and exempt drugs were comparable, which was not established. The court found the classification based on recognition by pharmacopoeias to be reasonable and serving the legislative objectives of the relevant acts.
3. The judgment clarified that no other contentions were presented during the appeal, and findings from previous arguments were not contested. Despite various objections raised before the lower court, the judgment affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, ordering costs to be borne by the appellant. Additionally, an oral application for leave under Article 132 of the Constitution was refused, concluding the legal proceedings in the case.
-
1964 (7) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of exemption notifications dated July 31, 1959, and April 30, 1960, to the appellant.
2. Liability of the appellant to pay excise duty on cotton fabrics produced by the cooperative society.
3. Interpretation of terms "produced by" and "produced on" in the context of the exemption notifications.
4. Validity of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Exemption Notifications:
The appellant contended that the cotton fabrics produced by the cooperative society should be exempt from excise duty under the notifications dated July 31, 1959, and April 30, 1960. The notifications exempted cotton fabrics produced by cooperative societies formed of owners of cotton power-looms from excise duty, subject to specific conditions. The appellant argued that the exemption applied irrespective of whether the fabrics were produced by the society itself or on behalf of a third party.
2. Liability of the Appellant to Pay Excise Duty:
The excise authorities issued a notice to the appellant demanding payment of excise duty, alleging that the appellant got the goods manufactured through the society and removed them without paying duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held the appellant liable for excise duty and imposed a penalty. The High Court of Gujarat partially upheld this decision but directed that the appellant be exempt from duty for goods supplied between June 1, 1959, and September 30, 1959.
3. Interpretation of Terms "Produced By" and "Produced On":
The appellant argued that the term "produced by" in the notifications should be interpreted to include fabrics produced on power-looms owned by the cooperative society, regardless of whether the production was for the society itself or a third party. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the language of the notifications did not specify that the fabrics must be produced by the society "for itself." The court emphasized that in a taxing statute, the clear meaning of the words must be considered, and any supposed intention of the exempting authority should not be called in aid unless it can be gathered from the language of the notification.
4. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise:
The court quashed the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise, holding that the appellant was entitled to exemption from excise duty for the periods between October 1, 1959, to April 30, 1960, and from May 1, 1960, to January 3, 1961. The court held that the appellant's case was covered by the language of the two notifications, and the appellant was entitled to the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat and allowed the Special Civil Application No. 1054 of 1963, granting a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders of the Assistant Collector of Excise and Customs and the Collector of Excise. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the appellant was held entitled to exemption from excise duty under the notifications dated July 31, 1959, and April 30, 1960.
-
1964 (4) TMI 2
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search conducted by the excise party.
2. Justification of the accused persons' resistance to the search.
3. Validity of the charges under sections 147 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Appropriateness of the trial court's conviction and sentencing.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Search Conducted by the Excise Party:
The excise party's actions were scrutinized to determine whether they were lawful under Rule 197 or Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules. The court noted that Rule 197 allows authorized officers to inspect premises without a search warrant, but only for verifying returns or collecting information required under the Act or Rules. Rule 201, however, requires a search warrant for entering and searching premises suspected of storing contraband. The court found that the excise party's actions were not covered under Rule 197 as their intent was to detect contraband tobacco, necessitating compliance with Rule 201 and Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which they failed to observe. Thus, the search was deemed illegal.
2. Justification of the Accused Persons' Resistance to the Search:
Given the illegality of the search, the court held that the accused persons were justified in resisting the excise party. The excise officers were not discharging their official duties according to law, and any obstruction by the accused did not amount to obstructing public servants in the lawful discharge of their duties. Therefore, the charge under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained.
3. Validity of the Charges under Sections 147 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code:
The charge under section 353 was dismissed due to the illegal nature of the search. However, the charge under section 147, which pertains to rioting, was upheld. The court found that the respondents formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the excise officers. Despite the failure to prove the obstruction of public servants in lawful discharge of their duties, the evidence showed that the respondents assaulted the officers, thus justifying the charge under section 147.
4. Appropriateness of the Trial Court's Conviction and Sentencing:
The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 147 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The Additional Sessions Judge had set aside this conviction. The High Court, however, restored the conviction under section 147 but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment for each respondent, considering the circumstances of the case. The acquittal under section 353 was confirmed.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the conviction of the respondents under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The acquittal of the respondents under section 353 was confirmed, and the respondents were directed to surrender to serve out the remaining period of their sentences.
-
1964 (3) TMI 84
Whether after the coming into force of the Act and the Rules,r. 36 of the 1345-F Rules can still be said to survive?
Held that:- The Act or the 1956 Rules make no provision for any such charge as is provided in r. 36 of 1345-F Rules, the intention being that the duty under the Act will cover all expenses for enforcing it. The fact that members of the supervisory staff are the servants of the respondent makes no difference because they function under the Act and the rules framed thereunder and not under the Hyderabad Act. We are therefore of opinion that reading s. 21 of the Act and r. 143 of the Rules framed thereunder, r. 36 of 1345-F Rules must be held to have been repealed and that it is not saved by the proviso to s. 21. We therefore allow the appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court, and direct the issue of writs as prayed for. Appeal allowed.
-
1964 (3) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the excise duty demand based on the proviso to the notification.
2. Discrimination against persons starting manufacture after a certain date.
3. Interpretation of the proviso in the context of the dissolution of a partnership.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Excise Duty Demand Based on the Proviso to the Notification:
The court examined the validity of the excise duty demand imposed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The demand was based on a notification (G.S.R. No. 373, dated 18th March 1961, as amended by Notification No. 81/1961, Central Excise, dated 1st April 1961) which stated that a higher rate of excise duty would apply to those commencing manufacture after 1st April 1961 by acquiring power looms from a previous licensee. The petitioners argued that this proviso led to unlawful discrimination and was not justified by the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which levies excise duty on the manufacture of specified goods, not on the date of commencement of manufacture. The court found this proviso to be somewhat strange and doubted its validity, as it did not see a reasonable connection between this discrimination and the object of the excise law.
2. Discrimination Against Persons Starting Manufacture After a Certain Date:
The petitioners contended that the proviso unlawfully discriminated against those starting manufacture after 1st April 1961, as they were required to pay a higher rate of excise duty compared to those who started earlier. The court noted that the proviso indeed created a discriminatory situation where a person acquiring power looms from a previous licensee after the specified date had to pay a higher rate. The court expressed doubts about the validity of this proviso but did not arrive at a definitive conclusion on this matter, as the petitioners' counsel did not argue this point extensively, nor did the Department provide sufficient justification for the discrimination.
3. Interpretation of the Proviso in the Context of the Dissolution of a Partnership:
The court examined whether the petitioners, who were previously partners in a business and later operated individually, fell within the scope of the proviso. The Department argued that the petitioners acquired 10 looms each from the partnership, thereby triggering the higher rate of duty. However, the court found that the previous license was issued not to the partnership firm but jointly to the two brothers as individuals. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no transfer of assets from one entity to another; rather, it was a division of jointly owned assets. The court held that the proviso could not apply in this context, as the firm was not a "person" under the Central Excise Act and rules. Therefore, the demand made by the Department was not justified.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, finding that the application of the proviso was erroneous in law. The court did not impose any costs.
-
1964 (3) TMI 8
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner, a general merchant, is liable under Rule 52-A (2) of the Central Excise Rules for contravening excise regulations.
2. Whether the department's demand for a security bond and deposit of Rs. 300 from the petitioner was lawful and justified.
3. Whether the department's actions against the petitioner were appropriate considering the responsibility of the mill as the producer of the goods.
4. Whether the department's demand for depositing the sum of money before any order of confiscation has been made was valid.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a general merchant not involved in manufacturing or production, was subjected to excise proceedings for an alleged violation of Rule 52-A (2) of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioner contested his liability, arguing that he should not be held accountable. The departmental officers seized goods from the petitioner and demanded a security bond and a deposit of Rs. 300 for release. The petitioner complied, but later challenged the necessity of the bond. The department claimed the bond was valid and enforceable, asserting a right to recover the amount. The petitioner's liability and the goods' confiscation were yet to be determined, acknowledged by the court.
2. The department's demand for a security bond and deposit from the petitioner was scrutinized. The petitioner contended that the bond was unnecessary after complying with the initial deposit requirement. The court found it surprising that goods were released without the bond initially, questioning the subsequent demand for deposit before any confiscation order. The court highlighted the petitioner's undertaking, which covered the requirements of the bond, allowing possession of goods until an adverse order was passed. The court ruled that the department could only demand payment of fines in lieu of confiscation, not the return of goods or a deposit based on their value.
3. The petitioner argued that the department's actions were unjust as they did not pursue the mill, responsible for excise duty payment as the producer of goods. The petitioner emphasized that no notice of demand was served to the mill, suggesting the department's focus on the wrong party. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns regarding the department's choice of action against him instead of the mill, raising questions about the legality and fairness of the department's approach.
4. The court concluded that the goods were released based on a proper undertaking by the petitioner, rendering the department's subsequent demand unjustified pending a final order. A writ of prohibition was issued to restrain the department from making such demands, emphasizing that the department could enforce the undertaking or security bond as necessary in the future. The court's decision aimed to uphold fairness and proper legal procedures in excise matters, ensuring that actions taken by authorities were justifiable and lawful.
-
1964 (3) TMI 6
Issues:
Interpretation of excise duty liability for vegetable non-essential oils manufactured by other mills using oil seeds supplied by the petitioner.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a firm manufacturing vegetable oils, supplied oil seeds to independent oil mills for processing. The mills manufactured oils within the exemption limit, but later, authorities demanded excise duty on oils supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner contended it was not the manufacturer of oils produced by other mills and challenged the demand notices. The primary issue was whether the petitioner was liable to pay excise duty on oils manufactured by other mills using its oil seeds.
The court addressed the preliminary objection of alternative remedies, emphasizing that a genuine infringement of fundamental rights cannot be dismissed based on alternative remedies. The duty of excise is levied on manufacturers, and the taxable event is the production or manufacture of goods. The duty is initially payable by the manufacturer, even if passed on to the consumer. The key question was whether the petitioner qualified as the manufacturer of oils produced by other mills using its oil seeds.
Examining the relevant provisions of the Act and rules, the court determined that the petitioner did not fall under the definition of a manufacturer. The Act required obtaining a license for manufacturing excisable goods, which the petitioner did not possess for the oils produced by other mills. The court highlighted that the owner or occupier of the factory where oils were manufactured was considered the manufacturer, not the supplier of raw materials. Central Excise Standing Order No. 26/56 clarified that oil mills processing oil seeds for others were not considered manufacturers.
The court emphasized that all vegetable oils produced in a factory, regardless of seed ownership, were excisable. It concluded that the owner of the factory where oils were manufactured should be treated as the manufacturer, not the supplier of oil seeds. Therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay excise duty on oils produced by other mills using its oil seeds. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the demand notices, and directed authorities not to recover excise duty from the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded costs.
-
1964 (1) TMI 3
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.
-
1963 (12) TMI 24
Whether the tax levied by the Act can be said to be discriminatory and as such, unconstitutional because it has selected only tea and jute as objects of taxation?
Whether the respondent has shown that the restrictions imposed by the Act by levying a tax on the movement of tea can be said to be reasonable and in the public interest?
Held that:- The mere fact that a validating statute operates retrospectively does not justify the contention that the character of the tax sought to be recovered by such retrospective operation is necessarily changed.
It is very difficult to assume that producers who were taxed under the earlier Act paid the tax without preferring an appeal or revision though they had a grievance against the validity or regularity of the assessment order. Therefore, we do not think the challenge to the validity of s. 34 can be sustained.
It is in regard to such a taxing statute which can properly be regarded as purely confiscatory that the power of the Court can be legitimately invoked and exercised. In our opinion, it would be idle to suggest that a tax imposed by the Act in the present case should be struck down because it has taxed only tea and jute.
In the present case, undoubtedly, tea has been carried over a part of the inland waterways in Assam and that satisfies the test of nexus. The argument of extra-territoriality must, therefore, fail. The argument based on the fact that the goods have been entrusted to the railway for through carriage, and so, the carriage of the goods should be held to be outside the purview of s. 3 of the Act, cannot be sustained.
The power to levy a tax which has been conferred on the State Legislature by Entry 56 cannot, therefore, be said to be controlled by the Tea Act in question. 'It would be noticed that List I does not contain any Entry by which the Central Legislature can pass an Act levying a tax on goods carried which can be said to control Entry 56 in List 11. That being so, we, must hold that there is no substance in the argument that the State Legislature has no power to levy a tax on tea which is carried over- a part of the area of the State of Assam. The result is, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1963 (10) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the notification dated 1st March 1963.
2. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Legality of the delegated legislation and the requirement of laying the notification before Parliament.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of the Notification:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the notification dated 1st March 1963, issued by the Union of India, which granted exemption from excise duty on a graduated scale to units manufacturing strawboard below 5000 metric tons. The notification aimed to support small-scale manufacturers by reducing the excise duty progressively based on production quantity. The petitioners argued that the notification was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Alleged Discrimination Under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the second proviso of the notification, which excluded factories producing more than 5000 metric tons of paper and paperboards, including strawboards, from the exemption, was discriminatory. They argued that this classification had no just and reasonable relationship with the notification's objective, which was ostensibly to help small-scale manufacturers maintain national requirements for strawboard. The petitioners claimed that the difference between the exempted and non-exempted units was arbitrary and lacked a real and substantial criterion, thereby violating the guarantee of equal protection of laws under Article 14.
The court examined the arguments and found that the notification was designed to protect smaller producers from unreasonable competition by bigger producers. The court noted that the cost of production varied between different units and that larger units could achieve economies of scale, which smaller units could not. The court concluded that the classification made by the notification was reasonable and had a rational connection with the objective to be achieved, which was to support small-scale manufacturers and maintain national production levels.
3. Legality of the Delegated Legislation and Requirement of Laying the Notification Before Parliament:
The petitioners also argued that the notification was unconstitutional because it was not laid before Parliament as required by Section 38 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court rejected this argument, stating that the notification was issued under the authority of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which empowered the Central Government to grant exemptions by notification in the official gazette. The court held that there was no requirement for the notification to be laid before Parliament before it could be enforced.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the notification did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification made by the notification was found to be reasonable and had a rational connection with the objective of supporting small-scale manufacturers. The court also upheld the legality of the delegated legislation and found no requirement for the notification to be laid before Parliament. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1963 (10) TMI 2
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.
-
1963 (9) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the impugned order.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the assessment procedure.
3. Arbitrariness and conjecture in the quantum of assessment.
4. Maintainability of the petition under Article 226.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner argued that the excise duty should have been levied upon Sarat Textiles Ltd., the lessee, instead of the petitioner personally. However, the court found that the duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is an 'excise duty' levied upon the goods produced or manufactured, and recoverable from any person who produces or manufactures such excisable goods. The petition itself stated that the goods produced during the lease period were by the petitioner, not Sarat Textiles. Hence, the court dismissed this contention.
The petitioner also argued that no 'place' had been specified by the Collector under Rule 9(1), thereby invalidating actions under Rule 9(2). The court clarified that specification by the Collector relates to any 'premises' appurtenant to the place of manufacture, not the place of manufacture itself. Thus, no specification is necessary for the place of manufacture, and the petitioner's argument was dismissed.
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses and the assessment was arbitrary. The court noted that Rule 9(2) does not specify a procedure for levy, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause and was heard personally. The court held that a right to confront witnesses is not an essential requirement of natural justice where the statute is silent, and the petitioner had the opportunity to make a written explanation and a personal hearing. The court found no violation of natural justice principles.
3. Arbitrariness and Conjecture in the Quantum of Assessment:
The petitioner argued that the quantum of assessment was arbitrary and based on conjecture. The court noted that the respondent relied on the application made by Sarat Textiles for a licence to import artificial silk yarn, which indicated that the fabrics produced contained more than 60% artificial silk. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide positive evidence to counter this finding. Additionally, the court observed that the respondent had given relief by applying Rule 69 MMMM, assessing based on the looms worked, and no penalty was added. The court dismissed the contention of arbitrary assessment.
4. Maintainability of the Petition under Article 226:
The court addressed a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The petitioner had appealed to the Central Board of Revenue and filed a revision application before the Government of India, both of which were rejected due to non-deposit of the demanded amount. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co., which held that the doctrine of merger applies to administrative orders. Since the appellate and revisional orders merged into the final order of the Central Government, the petitioner could not obtain relief without impugning the revisional order and impleading the Central Government, which was outside the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on this ground.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of maintainability, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to demonstrate a violation of natural justice or arbitrary assessment. The petitioner was advised to seek relief under general law if appropriate. The application was dismissed, and the rule discharged without any order as to costs.
-
1963 (9) TMI 2
Issues Involved:
1. Whether eucalyptus oil repacked and sold by the petitioner falls under the purview of Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Validity of the amended definition of 'manufacture' in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Whether the imposition of excise duty on repacked eucalyptus oil is justified.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether eucalyptus oil repacked and sold by the petitioner falls under the purview of Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioner argued that eucalyptus oil marketed by him does not fall within the purview of Item 14-E, which pertains to "Patent or Proprietary medicines not containing alcohol, opium, Indian Hemp, or other Narcotic drugs or other Narcotics other than those medicine which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani, Sidha or Homoeopathic." The explanation provided under this item defines "Patent or Proprietary medicines" as any drug or medicinal preparation for use in the treatment of human beings or animals, which bears a name not specified in a monograph in a pharmacopoeia or is a brand name or a registered trade mark. The court examined whether eucalyptus oil could be considered a drug or medicinal preparation and if it bore any name or mark as described in the explanation. It was found that eucalyptus oil is specified in one of the notified publications and does not bear a brand name or registered trade mark. The court concluded that the mere mention of the dealer's name on the label does not establish a connection in the course of trade as required by the explanation.
2. Validity of the amended definition of 'manufacture' in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the amended definition of 'manufacture' which includes repacking from bulk into retail packets. The Collector of Central Excise argued that the amendment is within Entry 84 of List I in the seventh schedule and its validity cannot be attacked. The court did not find sufficient grounds to invalidate the amended definition, indicating that the legislative power to prescribe the point at which excise duty becomes leviable is justified.
3. Whether the imposition of excise duty on repacked eucalyptus oil is justified:
The Collector of Central Excise contended that the petitioner is a manufacturer with a Central Excise licence authorizing him to pack eucalyptus oil, and that the duty is leviable at the point of packing or repacking. The court examined the labels on the bottles and the cardboard containers to determine if they bore any marks that would establish a connection in the course of trade. It was found that the labels only mentioned the name of the petitioner, the quantity, the price, and the words "pure eucalyptus oil," which do not amount to a symbol, monogram, label, signature, or invented words used in relation to the medicine. The court concluded that the use of the dealer's name does not establish the required connection in the course of trade, and therefore, the explanation to Item 14-E does not apply.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, ruling that eucalyptus oil repacked and sold by the petitioner does not fall within the purview of Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the imposition of excise duty on the repacked eucalyptus oil is not justified. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
-
1963 (7) TMI 1
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise to conduct a de novo enquiry after an order by the Central Board of Revenue.
2. Interpretation of the appellate order of the Central Board of Revenue regarding the direction for a de novo enquiry.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner, a dealer in tobacco products, faced penalties under Central Excise Rules for a substantial stock shortage. The Central Board of Revenue vacated the Collector's penalty order. However, the Collector initiated a fresh proceeding for the same shortage, leading to the petitioner seeking a writ of Prohibition. The High Court held that in the absence of a specific direction in the appellate order for a de novo enquiry, the Collector lacked jurisdiction to conduct one. The appellate order's terms did not provide a precise direction for such an enquiry, and the powers of the appellate authority were distinct from those under Certiorari proceedings. The appellate order's finality precluded the Collector from initiating de novo proceedings without explicit directions.
Issue 2: The judgment emphasized the self-contained rules under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, providing for appeals to the Central Board of Revenue. The appellate authority had wide powers, including the ability to conduct further enquiries and pass suitable orders. The judgment clarified that after the appellate tribunal's decision, jurisdiction could only be revived in the original tribunal with specific directions in the appellate order. The use of "without prejudice" in the appellate order did not confer jurisdiction for a de novo enquiry. Additionally, a secret communication from an official was deemed administrative and not part of the appellate order. The judgment affirmed that the terms of the appellate order were insufficient to imply a remand order, thus upholding the decision to dismiss the appeal and confirming the learned Judge's ruling.
In conclusion, the High Court affirmed that the Collector of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to conduct a de novo enquiry without explicit directions in the appellate order, emphasizing the finality of the appellate tribunal's decision and the distinct nature of its powers compared to Certiorari proceedings. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the statutory framework under Section 35, highlighting the appellate authority's broad powers and the limitations on reviving jurisdiction in the original tribunal without specific directions. The interpretation of the appellate order's terms and the dismissal of collateral circumstances underscored the importance of clarity and precision in legal proceedings.
-
1963 (5) TMI 1
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and duty on surreptitious removal of mustard oil from petitioner firm's mill.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the imposition of a penalty and excise duty on a petitioner firm for the alleged surreptitious removal of mustard oil from their mill. The Central Excise Department received information regarding incorrect accounts and unauthorized removal of dutiable oil. A search was conducted, resulting in the seizure of incriminating documents, including two Press Books. Discrepancies between the two Press Books led to the discovery of excess production of 77,620 Kgs of mustard oil, indicating clandestine removal without payment of duty.
The petitioner denied the charges and argued that the seized records were not authentic. During the hearing, the petitioner's lawyer contended that dismissed employees fabricated the incriminating Press Book to frame the firm. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the defense and imposed the duty and penalty.
The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking relief through a writ of Certiorari. The petitioner's counsel raised three main points in support of the challenge. Firstly, they argued that the penalty was based on inference from the existence of two Press Books, which was unjustified. Secondly, they contended that the failure to produce witnesses who provided the initial information violated natural justice. Lastly, they claimed that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine relevant individuals.
The Court analyzed the arguments sequentially. While acknowledging the lack of direct evidence, the Court upheld the inference drawn from the incriminating documents found in possession of the petitioner. The Court also noted that the penalty was not solely based on the initial information but on the materials discovered during the search. Regarding the denial of cross-examination, the Court observed that the petitioner withdrew the request during the hearing, negating the claim of a procedural violation.
Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge and dismissed the Rule with costs, emphasizing that the evidence from the seized documents justified the penalty and duty imposed on the petitioner firm.
....
|
9911796707
