9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1964 (3) TMI 84 - SC - Central ExciseWhether 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reading s. 21 of the Act and r. 143 of the Rules framed thereunder, r. 36 of 1345-F Rules must be held to have been repealed and that it is not saved by the proviso to s. 21.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.
Issues:
- Interpretation of r. 36 of the 1345-F Rules under the Hyderabad Abkari Act in light of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, No. 16 of 1955. - Whether r. 36 of the 1345-F Rules was repealed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. - Application of Art. 277 of the Constitution regarding the levying of charges by the State on the manufacture of medicinal preparations. - Analysis of the proviso to Section 21 of the Act in relation to the continuity of r. 36 of the 1345-F Rules. - Examination of the purpose and enforcement of r. 36 in connection with the general law of alcohol and intoxicating drugs under the Hyderabad Abkari Act. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involves a dispute regarding the applicability of r. 36 of the 1345-F Rules under the Hyderabad Abkari Act following the enactment of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, No. 16 of 1955. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing medicines requiring alcohol, contested the State's imposition of charges under r. 36 post the enforcement of the new Act. The High Court upheld the validity of r. 36, emphasizing its relevance in supervising alcohol use for medicinal preparations. The Supreme Court scrutinized the issue to determine the survival of r. 36 post the new legislation. The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional provisions, specifically Art. 277, which allowed the State to levy charges until Parliament legislated otherwise. The Court noted that the Act repealed corresponding laws in the States, including the Hyderabad Abkari Act, to the extent of conflict. The Court highlighted the importance of Rule 143 of the 1956 Rules, which repealed all rules under previous laws concerning medicinal preparations. Consequently, the Court held that r. 36 of the 1345-F Rules was no longer valid for medicinal preparations under the new legal framework. Furthermore, the Court examined the proviso to Section 21 of the Act, contended by the State to sustain the validity of r. 36. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the repeal of old rules by the new legislation. The Court elucidated that the supervisory staff's role under r. 36 was specific to monitoring medicinal preparations, aligning with the Act's provisions and rendering r. 36 redundant. The Court emphasized that the Act and the 1956 Rules did not provide for charges akin to r. 36, indicating the comprehensive coverage of expenses under the new legal regime. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court's decision, and directed the issuance of writs as requested by the appellants. The Court clarified that r. 36 of the 1345-F Rules had been repealed and was not saved by the proviso to Section 21. The appellants were awarded costs, signifying the resolution of the legal dispute in their favor.
|
