9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to .call for records relating to the Notification No. 20/82, dated 20th February, 1982 issued by the first respondent herein giving effect to Amendment and Demand Order No. D.C.487/83 dated 6th May, 1983 issued by the fourth respondent herein in pursuant to the said notification and quash the same and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, by way of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ or otherwise and to restrain the respondents and their officers from giving effect to the said Notification No. 20/82 dated 20th February, 1982, issued by the first respondent and the demand of Central Excise duty raised by the fourth respondent in O.C. No. 487/83 dated 6.5.1983, on Oleum manufactured and consumed within the plant by the petitioner from the date of the said Notification against the petitioner and pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may, deem fit and proper and thus render justice." The petitioner primarily manufactures Oleum among other products. Oleum is consumed and ut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mes, and accordingly notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. (a) all duties of excise levied, assessed or collected or purporting to have been levied, assessed or collected, before the 20th day of February, 1982, on any excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, shall be deemed to be and shall be deemed to have always been, as validly levied, assessed or collected as if the amendments referred to in sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times; (b) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court for the refund of, and no enforcement shall be made by any court of any decree or order directing the refund of, any such duties of excise which have been collected and which would have been validly collected if the amendments referred to in sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times; (c) refund shall be made of all such duties of excise which have been collected but which would not have been so collected if the amendments referred to in sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times; (d) recovery shall be made of all such duties of excise which have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or arbitrariness of a retrospective law. It is admitted that prior to the amendment, there were divisions of other High Courts holding that an intermediary product utilised or consumed for obtaining another product in the very same premises would not attract excise duty, since by such utilisation or consumption, there was no removal within the meaning of Rule 9 before its amendment in 1982. If with a view to remove the ambiguity or cure the infirmity in the language of the provision, a classificatory or validating law retrospectively comes to be enacted, naturally it has to cover a long range and viewed from this angle, it would be inappropriate to declare the retrospective law as unreasonable or arbitrary. Each law has got to be dealt with in the context in which it came to be enacted. By the notification introduced by the amendment by the Notification and the retrospective validation of it by the Finance Act in 1982, what should have been the position clear of the ambiguity, got declared and naturally enforcement will have to be done retrospectively. Such enforcement retrospectively cannot have the stamp of unreasonableness or arbitrariness. It must be noted that Explanation to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompetent to legislate in the manner it did to meet or overcome an extraordinary situation created by the rulings of the Delhi, and other High Courts........ In J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and another v. Union of India and others, 1983 E.L.T. 239 (Delhi) the Delhi High Court had also upheld the very amendment. In Tata Export Ltd. v. Union of India and others - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 732 (M.P.), and Kathiwar Jute Mills Ltd. v. Inspector of Central Excise and others, 1986 (23) E.L.T. 2 (Patna) (FB); 1986 (7) ECC 43 FB (Patna) the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Patna respectively had also upheld the amendment. We are in respectful agreement with the conclusion reached by their Lordships in these cases." 6. So far as this court is concerned, a similar point arose for consideration with reference to Notification No. 22/82 adopted by Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982, and a Bench of this Court in Bharat Match Works, Vanaramamurthi and others v. Union of India and others, 1984 (16) E.L.T. 3 (Madras) while upholding its validity observed as follows :- "It is by now well established that the Parliament has got the power to make law on a topic in respect of which it is compet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any way affect its legislative character and validity at all. In reality and substance, it was a case of full and complete legislation by the plenary legislature and it was not a case of subordinate legislation by the delegated authority. If that is so, then the arguments built on the premise of subordinate or delegated legislation must fall to the ground." I respectfully agree with and adopt the above reasoning to repel this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 9. With reference to the point, which the learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to make regarding the definition of 'place of removal' found in Section 4(4)(b) of the Act and the Explanation to Rule 9 introduced in 1982, there is no scope for any conflict or ambiguity coming in between the two, because as rightly pointed out by Mr.T. Somasundaram learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents, that while Section 4(4)(b) defines only 'the place of removal', Rule 9 speaks about removal as such and the Explanation introduced in 1982 has defined that consumption or utilisation of excisable goods produced or manufactured in the very same place would amount to removal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
