9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring activity without obtaining licence in terms of Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. He has averred that all attempts made by the Department to make him take out a licence had met with no success. However, a notice dated 1-2-1988 came to be issued as at Annexure-V to the writ petition by which he was called upon to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajajinagar Division, Bangalore, as to why he should not be proceeded against for violation of Rule 173(Q) and Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules among other things. He was given 30 days time to File his reply to the show cause notice from the date of receipt of the notice. However, even before he had showed cause, a search and seizure was conducted of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Admittedly, the petitioner is a manufacturer of spectacles and parts thereof or manufacturer of articles which are listed in the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Therefore, prima facie, having regard to the language of Section 6 of the Central Excises Salt Act which is as follows: "The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, provide that, from such date as may be specified in the notification, no person shall, except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under this Act, engage in - (a) the production or manufacture of any process of the production or manufacture of any specified goods included in the First Schedule or of saltpeter or of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 6 or Rule 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules or even the language of Rule 174. Rule 173(Q) provides for confiscation and penalty if any manufacturer, producer or licencee of a warehouse, removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules; engages in the manufacturing or production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the licence required under Section 6 of the Act. There appears to be considerable case law on the subject holding that particular rule, the violation of which should call for deterrent penalty. Similarly, Rule 174 of the said Rules provides for licences being taken by either manufacturer, trader or person mentioned in the Rules and he shall not conduct this business in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re exempted from duty for any reason. When the same goods are again subjected to duty for some other reasons under different circumstances, it cannot be said that the licence gets automatically revived or cancelled as the case may be. Therefore, I do not sec any reason why the Court should not rule, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel, that Section 6 is mandatory requiring the manufacturer of goods which are mentioned in First Schedule to the Tariff Act to take out a licence. 4. I have no reason to believe on account of the seizure in the same month in which the show-cause notice was issued, it should be treated as coercive action compelling the petitioner to make the application and also to take out the licence which is issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
