1969 (9) TMI 39 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the requirement for obtaining a license under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944.
2. Applicability of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules to the petitioners.
3. Interpretation of the notification exempting footwear below a certain value from licensing requirements.
4. Distinction between excise duty payment and the requirement for a license under the Act.
5. Availability of statutory remedies under the Act for challenging licensing decisions.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus challenging the requirement to obtain a license under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. The petitioners argued that they were not manufacturing excisable goods as defined under the Act and were exempt based on a notification exempting footwear below a certain value. The Central Government contended that Rule 174(2)(a) applied to the petitioners and that the notification did not exempt them from obtaining a license.

The Act defines excisable goods and prescribes duties on such goods. Section 6 mandates obtaining a license for engaging in the production or manufacture of specified goods. Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules requires manufacturers to hold a license. The petitioners, as footwear manufacturers, were deemed to be manufacturing excisable goods, and Rule 174(2)(a) was applicable to them.

The notification exempting footwear below a certain value did not absolve the petitioners from the licensing requirement. Even though the petitioners may not be liable for excise duty, they were still obligated to obtain a license under Rule 174. The Court found no illegality in the notice requiring the petitioners to obtain a license.

Additionally, the Court highlighted that the petitioners had previously filed similar applications, indicating a recurring issue. The Court emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under the Act for challenging licensing decisions, including appeals and revisions. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the petition and that statutory remedies should be pursued instead.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the requirement for the petitioners to obtain a license under the Act, emphasizing the distinction between excise duty payment and licensing obligations. The petition was dismissed, and the Court highlighted the availability of statutory remedies for challenging licensing decisions.