Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. vs Union of India

Venkataswami, J. 1. This writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to a directive bearing reference D. C. No. 160/86, dated 27-3-1986 and to quash the directive and for consequential relief.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the Notification No. 195/86-C. E., dated 13-3-1986 granting exemption covers the exemption from excise duty to steam manufactured for the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986. In other words whether the said notification is prospective or retrospective in character with reference to the same petitioner. The Collector (Appeals) in A. No. 114/88 (CBE) by order dated 30-10-1988 has decided the issue in favour of the petitioner and it appears that the revenue has accepted the same. On the basis of the appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has to be allowed. Mr. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel however, submits that though the point is covered as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the directive challenged in the writ petition was the one issued against the fourth respondent and that therefore the petitioner cannot challenge the same. Yet another objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 is that the petitioner can appear before the authorities and claim the benefit on the basis of the order of the Collector (Appeals) and the invocation of jurisdiction under of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be discouraged.

After hearing learned counsel of both sides, I find that both the objections raised by the learned counsel for the revenue are not sustainable. On the first objection, it is not in dispute that though at the first instance the fourth respondents is liable to pay excise duty, if necessary, ultimately it is to be borne by the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner has the right to challenge the directive impugned in this writ petition. On the second objection, I am of the view that once the position is clear and accepted, it is unnecessary to drive the petitioner to go before the authorities for getting the relief and therefore that objection is also overruled.

In view of the admitted position as mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute. However, there will be no orders as to costs.