O.C.M. (India) Limited vs Union of India (UOI)

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—At issue in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution validity of Rule 9 introduced in the Central Excise Rules, 1944 through notification No. 20/82-C.E., and Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982. The petitioners also impugn order dated 1st August 1981 (Annexure P3) of the Assistant Collector declining permission to the petitioners to consume the specified yarn manufactured in its factory for manufacture of other exciseable goods covered under different Tariff items in the premises of the same factory without payment of excise duty. The petitioners also challenge the order dated 8th January 1982 (Annexure P-6) of the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Chheharta-II specifying the place within the factory for manufacture of specified yarns. They also assail the orders of the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) creating the liability in accordance with the impugned statutory provisions and the order of the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) dated 10th January 1984 (Annexure P-18) turning down the petitioner''s appeal.

It is not necessary to recaptulate the facts of the case in detail and it will suffice to just give the outlines of the grounds of attack because the matters raised in this petition are not res integra and stand concluded against the petitioners by a recent decision of the final Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Anr Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors,

It is contended that amended Rule 9 of the Rules introduced in Excise Rules through notification No. 20/82-C.E., insofar as it confers unfettered and petently discriminatory discretions in the excise authorities for specifying the premises of manufacture and to encompass within its ambit intermediate/inprocess products produced in the process of manufacture, is ultra vires Articles 14,19(1)(g), 20,265 and 300A and Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Section 51 of the Finance Act 1982 insofar as it gives retrospective effect to the amended Rule 9 imposing additional excise retrospectively is violative of the established canons of Tax Jurisprudence and beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament.

The orders of the Excise Authorities passed in exercise of these powers conferred by Rule 9 of the Rules are unsustainable.

All these pleas were raised by the appellant in J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills'' case (supra), wherein it has been held that Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules as amended by notification No. 20/82-C.E. make intermediate goods liable to duty even if produced in continous process is valid and is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It was further held that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 giving retrospective effect to amendments in Rules 9 and 49 is not ultra vires.

The impugned order Annexure P-3 declining exemption from payment of excise duty on yarn used on captive consumption; Order Annexure P-6 dated 8th January 1982 specifying the place for manufacture of yarn and orders of the Excise Authorities including Annexure P-18 dated 10th January 1984 of the Collector, Central Excise Appeals are passed in exercise of powers conferred by statutorily valid provisions and are perfectly legal and valid.

In the result, we find that the decision in J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills'' case is the complete answer to all the pleas raised in this writ petition.

In all fairness to Shri Lalit Mohan Suri, learned counsel for the petitioners, it must be stated that he submitted that the petitioners should be permitted to pay the dues in easy instalments or alternatively they should be given some time to make payment. We are not impressed. The recovery of excise duty and penalty have been stayed during the pendency of the writ petition on petitioners'' furnishing a back guarantee. These orders were passed in the beginning of 1984 and the revenue has not received its dues for all these years. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to any further concession from this Court. Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. No costs.