9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. We take it that the concession remains binding on the respondents, and it is not necessary for us to pass any express order in that regard. The appeal is dismissed. - 138 of 1979 - - - Dated:- 8-7-1985 - R.S. Pathak and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ. [Judgment per : Pathak, J.].- This civil appeal arises out of a writ petition filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for the quashing of proceedings taken under the Produce Cess Act, 1966 for the assessment and recovery of the cess. 2. The Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, the Indian Lac Cess Act, 1930, the Indian Coconut Committee Act, 1944 and the Indian Oilseeds Committee Act, 1946 ceased to have effect from April 1, 1966 in consequence of which the relative Committees constituted under those Acts stood dissolved and there was no legislative sanction for the continuance of the levy of cess on the produce after March 31, 1966. While the Research Institutes and Stations and other research projects of those Committees now fell within the administrative control of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and the work relating to development, marketing and other functions was to be looked after directly by the Minist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question whether sub-section (2) of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Cess Rules were ultra vires and whether the notices issued by the authorities were valid on the ground that no machinery had been provided for the levy of the cess during the relevant period. All the contentions were rejected by the High Court, and the writ petition was dismissed. 6. In the appeal before us the limited point raised is that the appellant is not liable to payment of cess for the period during which the Collector and appellate authority had not been appointed, and no penal proceeding can be taken against the appellant for not furnishing returns and depositing the cess pertaining to such period. It is pointed out that while Section 9 of the Act confers power on the Collector to make assessment and recovery of the excise duty such Collector was appointed only on July 13, 1970. It is also pointed out that while Section 10 of the Act provides for an appeal against the assessment, the appellate authority was appointed as late as August 21, 1972. 7. The case before us falls into two parts. Is the appellant liable to prosecution for not filing returns and paying the cess during the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as there is no Collector there is no obligation on the occupier of a mill to furnish monthly returns and there is no existing statutory authority for taking proceedings for the assessment and collection of the cess. 9. Reliance was placed before the High Court by the respondent on sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 declares that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty, shall so for as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of duties of excise on any produce specified in the Second Schedule as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of duty payable to the Central Government under that Act. The High Court took the view that the absence of a Collector appointed under the Act was of no significance and proceedings could be taken under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. We are unable to agree. In our opinion, in order to ascertain the scope of sub-section (2) of Section 15 it is necessary to read the Act as a whole. We have pointed out earlier that the expression "Collector" has been specifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessments made under the Cess Act. The jurisdiction to do so belongs solely to the appellate authority appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Cess Act. 10. We hold that the appellant cannot be prosecuted for its omission to furnish monthly returns required under Section 8 of the Act during the period up to July 30, 1970 for which there was no Collector appointed under the Act. The appellate authority was appointed on August 21, 1972, but the delay in appointing the appellate authority can be no ground for not furnishing the returns after July 30, 1970, when the Collector was appointed. We find it unnecessary to go into the further question whether the appellant can be excused from furnishing monthly returns up to March 28, 1969, that is to say, until the Produce Cess Rules, which prescribed the form of the return and the mode of the verification, were published. That is unnecessary because in any event the Collector was not appointed until July 30, 1970 and for that reason no returns could be filed up to that date. 11. The absence of a duly appointed Collector under the Act for a certain period is a good defence against a prosecution for non-compliance with Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. 12. We hold that the delay in appointing the Collector under the Act does not relieve the appellant of the liability to excise duty in respect of the period during which the Collector was not appointed. 13. This disposes of the further argument of the appellant that as the appellate authority was appointed on August 21, 1972 only there was no liability to pay the duty in respect of the period until such appointment. If the delay in appointing the Collector does not furnish good ground for excusing the occupier from such liability, the delayed appointment of the appellate authority also constitutes no defence. 14. The only relief therefore to which the appellant can be entitled in the present appeal would be an order restraining the respondents from taking any penal action against the appellant for not furnishing monthly returns during the period in which no Collector had been appointed under the Act. It seems, however, that counsel for the respondents stated in the High Court during the hearing of the writ petition that no penal action would be taken against the appellant for not furnishing monthly returns within the period mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
