Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 293 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Quantum of duty which the appellant / petitioner was liable to pay in terms of the provisions contained in the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 - Rule 8 of the CTUT Rules 2010 is ultra vires to Section 3A of CE Act or not - HELD THAT:- It is deemed appropriate to note at the outset that the challenge to Rule 8 of the CTUT Rules 2010 was founded solely upon the Second Proviso to Section 3A(2)(b). The appellant / petitioner does not question the authority of the Union Government to either prescribe the manner in which the the annual capacity of production may be determined nor does it question its right to formulate a factor relevant for the purposes of estimating production in a factory.
As is manifest from a reading of Section 3A(2)(a), the Union Government is empowered not only to prescribe the manner for determination of annual capacity of production of a factory, the said provision by way of a legal fiction stipulates that the capacity of production as determined in accordance with the Rules shall be “deemed” to be the annual production of goods in that factory. The computation of annual production and the same being computed by virtue of a statutory deemed fiction does not owe its genesis to Rule 8. The said legal fiction stands incorporated in Section 3A(2)(a) itself.
The challenge to Rule 8 must also fail when tested on the anvil of the Second Proviso to Section 3A(2)(b). It becomes pertinent to note that the Second Proviso deals with a contingency where the “factor relevant” is altered or modified at any time during the year. It is in such a situation alone that the annual production is liable to be redetermined on a proportionate basis. However, and as is evident from the recital of facts in the preceding parts of this decision, the “factor relevant” as prescribed by Rule 4 remained unaltered. The quantification of duty liable to be paid by a manufacturer remained constantly during the period in question hinged upon the number of packing machines in the factory of a manufacturer - the Tribunal has abjectly failed to advert to the deeming fiction which stands introduced by Rule 8.
It is unable to hold Rule 8 as being ultra vires Section 3A nor there are any error in the view as expressed by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned.