TMI Blog1962 (8) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interests of co-operative societies, cottage industries and small manufacturers has often to be made to give an impetus to them and save them from annihilation in competition with large industry. It has never been successfully assailed on the ground of discrimination. Appeal dismissed. - 94/1955 - - - Dated:- 20-8-1962 - (Constitution Bench) S.K. Das, J.L. Kapur, A.K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal, JJ. [Judgment per : Hidayatullah, J.]. - This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of Excise Duty on the petitioner by virtue of Item No. 17 "Foot-wear" of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) with effect from 28th day of February, 1954, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... twear" includes all varieties footwear, whether known as boots, shoes, sandals, chappals, or by any other name. Ten per cent ad valorem." 3. Under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 (XVI of 1931), the duty was leviable from February 28, 1954 by virtue of a declaration in the Bill to that effect. On the preceding day the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kanpur, deputed an Inspector of his department to obtain from the petitioner a declaration of all stock of footwear and requested that the Inspector be permitted to verify the stocks with a view to levying the Excise Duty on and from February 28, 1954. As a result of the imposition of Excise Duty on footwear the petitioner was required to pay during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y therein levied. 4. According to the petitioner a distinction has been made in Item 17 above-quoted between manufacturers of footwear employing more than 50 workers or carrying on the manufacturing process with the aid of power exceeding 2 H.P. and other manufacturers. According to the petitioner this amounts to discrimination because there is no reasonable basis for differentiating between manufacturers on the basis of number of workers or the employment of power above 2 H.P. The petitioner contends that the essentials of the manufacture of footwear are the same whether one employs 50 or more workers or less. The larger number of workers is merely needed because the out-turn has to be greater but the number does not change the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ. 7. Lastly, it is contended that the Finance Act, 1954 received the assent of the President on 27th April, 1954, and must be deemed to have become law from that date. The collection of Excise Duty from 1st March, 1954, before the Finance Bill became law, is said to be illegal. We shall deal only briefly with these arguments as most of them have by now been considered and decided in other cases of this Court. 8. The contention that this duty does not amount to a duty of excise because it cannot be passed on by the petitioner to the consumer was not raised before us. It was mentioned in the petition. An Excise Duty is a duty on production and though according to the economist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed at a time when the appeal before the Board of Revenue was pending and there was a further right of revision to the Central Government. 11. This leaves over for consideration the challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The argument under each of these Articles is based on precisely the same facts viewed from different angles. It is contended that there is a discrimination between big manufacturers of footwear and small manufacturers which is not based on any differentia. This discrimination, it is said, leads to the imposition of a heavy tax on the big manufacturers with a corresponding exemption in favour of the small manufacturers giving rise to a competition sufficient to put the big manufacturers out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mass production would lose all its advantages. No doubt the manufacturers are now required to bear burdens which previously did not exist, like bonus, expenses on labour-welfare etc. but still the manufacturers, provided the business is well run, can by mass production offer the same commodity at a competitive price as against small manufacturers and bear the burden as well. Therefore, in imposing the Excise Duty, there was a definite desire to make an exemption in favour of the small manufacturer who is unable to pay the duty as easily, if at all as the big manufacturer. Such a classification in the interests of co-operative societies, cottage industries and small manufacturers has often to be made to give an impetus to them and save them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
