TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er does not own a factory of her own for manufacture. She has obtained a licence under the Drugs Act known as "loan licence" enabling her to use the factory premises of another factory owner. Actually, the petitioner is using the factory of M/s. Medhopharm at Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar, Madras-6. It is stated that there are other loan licensees attached to the said factory. The produce manufactured by the petitioner falls under Tariff Item 14-E of Schedule I to the Central Excise Act which attracts ad valorem duty, the prescribed rate of duty being 12 /2% ad valorem together with a special excise duty of 5%. 3. In and by Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 exemption was granted on all excisable goods cleared for home consumption on or aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely :- 'Provided that the aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods from any factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers - (i) at nil rate of duty in terms of clause (a) of this paragraph, or (ii) at reduced rate of duty in terms of clause (b) of this paragraph, shall not in either case exceed rupees seven and a half lakhs in any financial year.' The petitioners were hurt by the portion of the notification which fixes a limit on the basis of the aggregate value of clearance of the specified goods from any factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers. In other words, if there are three or four loan licensees manufacturing the specified goods from one facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself, the argument that it violates Section 3 has to be rejected. In Match House v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Another [1988 (35) E.L.T. 290 (Mad.)], Nainar Sundaram, J. has laid down that the notification under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be with reference to the process of manufacturing and it could also be with reference to very many other contingencies and factors provided the power of exemption is exercised with reference to excisable goods. 8. The next argument of Mr. Elamurugan is that if the impugned notification is implemented, it would result in infringement of the constitutional guarantee provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While illustrating this point, it is averred that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise of its delegated legislation who is more familiar by proximity and study with the problem concerned." 9. The counsel for the petitioners advances a third argument saying that if the interpretation of the respondents is accepted, then the notification would violate Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. Here again, the counter affidavit, in answer to the above contention, says that the petitioners' fundamental rights to carry on business are in no way hampered by the impugned notification. On the other hand, the petitioners are at liberty to do business and discharge their statutory liabilities. While examining the argument of the counsel for the petitioners with reference to Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
