Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 1990 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1990 (5) TMI 48 - HC - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Validity of the Explanation to the notification dated March 20, 1980 and subsequent notices demanding duty on stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer.
2. Interpretation of Rule 147 regarding payment of duty on excisable articles.
3. Jurisdiction of the State Government to impose duty on imported foreign liquor.
4. Right of the petitioners to challenge State actions in the Writ Court.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Rule was issued concerning the validity of the Explanation to the notification and subsequent notices demanding duty on the stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to withdraw, cancel, or set aside the Explanation and notices, claiming no duty was payable on the stock as of April 1, 1980. The petitioners argued that the demands were without jurisdiction or authority of law. The Court examined the Explanation and found it within the scope of the Act and Rules, not contrary to the law. The petitioners' challenge was dismissed as the Explanation was deemed lawful and justified.

2. The interpretation of Rule 147 was crucial in determining the duty payment on excisable articles. The Rule specified that duty on imported foreign liquor should be paid before removal from the excise warehouse, with provisions for revision in duty rates. The Court analyzed the Rule and its proviso, emphasizing that the duty difference applies only to liquor imported under bond, not to all imported liquor. As the petitioners' liquor was not imported under bond, they were not liable to pay the duty difference as demanded, highlighting the importance of a close scrutiny of the Rule's provisions.

3. The jurisdiction of the State Government to impose duty on imported foreign liquor was a significant issue. The petitioners relied on precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, to argue against the State's actions. The Court considered the statutory powers granted to the State and the limitations on rule-making authorities. It emphasized that executive actions beyond the scope of rules are unlawful, but in this case, the Explanation was found to be within the legal framework. The State's authority to impose duty was upheld based on the existing Act and Rules.

4. The right of the petitioners to challenge State actions in the Writ Court was debated. The State contended that the petitioners, as liquor licensees, had no fundamental right to run a liquor business and could not seek remedies against State actions. However, the Court affirmed that any person affected by unlawful acts is entitled to approach the Writ Court for remedies. The Court stressed the importance of lawful and justified State actions, ensuring that individuals can challenge actions that are contrary to the law. Ultimately, the petitioners' challenge was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged with no costs awarded.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates