9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. It also enabled the Government to make rules providing for the exemption from the whole or any part of the duty of excise levied under the 1953 Act. 3A. In exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the 1953 Act, the Central Government had issued a notification dated 25th July, 1953 whereby all varieties of cloth which were for the time being exempted from the duty of excise levied thereon under the Excise Act was also exempted from the Additional Excise duty under the 1953 Act. 4. On 1st March, 1969 a notification was issued whereby basic duty leviable under Excise Act was exempted on certain types of cloth. It is this notification which was applicable to the petitioner and as a result thereof it was not liable to pay Excise duty under the Excise Act. 5. The petitioner, it appears, during the period 1st March, 1969 to 6th July, 1970, however, continued to pay Additional Excise duty under the 1953 Act. The total amount paid by it was Rs. 2,28,483.69 P. 6. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid amount was paid under protest. The petitioner's contention was that by virtue of the 1953 notification issued under Section 5 of the 1953 Act read with notification dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in sub-section (1), for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 10th day of January, 1957, namely :- Provided that no such duty shall be levied on cloth - (i) Which is exported out of India, or (ii) Which is used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India." "3. Amendment of Section 5. In sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the principal Act - (i) in Clause (e), after the words "exempt from", the words "the whole or any part of" shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from the 1st day of March, 1960. (ii) the following proviso shall be inserted, and shall be deemed always to have been inserted, namely :- Provided that any rule under Clause (e) may be made so as to have retrospective effect from any date not earlier than two years before the date of publication thereof." "4. Validation of duty of excise levied and collected under me principal Act in respect of certain period. (1) Notwithstanding an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of refund made by the two of the applications which had not been disposed of so far. 13. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution whereby the validity of the 1972 Act had been challenged. 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had raised four contentions before me. She firstly contended that the 1972 Act was bad because it nullifies the effect of an earlier exemption from Excise duty which was available to the petitioner. The second contention was that the Amending Act was ultra vires as it imposed an unreasonable restriction because it was retrospective. The third contention was that the said Act was discriminatory and it offended the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Lastly she urged that the principle of equitable estoppel are attracted to this case and the respondents could not, therefore, deprive the petitioner of the exemption from the payment of Excise duty. 15. In order to appreciate these contentions, it is first necessary to mention the effect of the various enactments. Basic Excise duty was leviable under the Excise Act. By notification dated 1st March, 1969, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng as the Parliament has legislative competence to enact an Act and such an Act is not violative of any provision of the Constitution, then the same cannot be challenged merely on the ground that the impugned Act has the effect of nullifying an exemption. The Parliament is free to make laws which may have the effect of taking away a right or benefit which was being enjoyed by a person and unless that law is shown to be contrary to the constitutional provisions the same cannot be held to be invalid. 18. It is also now too late in the day for the learned Counsel for the petitioner to contend that the 1972 Act is bad, as it imposed an unreasonable restriction because it is retrospective in operation. It is now well settled that the Parliament can enact law which has the effect of validating and/or levying taxes, duties, including, Excise duty with retrospective effect. Any law so enacted cannot be challenged merely on the ground that it is unreasonable. Such a question was raised before this Court that Section 51 of the Finance Act of 1982 had the effect of making rules operative with retrospective effect from 1945. The vires of such a provision was upheld by this Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
