JUDGMENT

RAY, C. J. :—These appeals by certificate turn on the question whether the Government was right in making a demand of excise duty on liquor not lifted by the liquor contractors. 634

2. The High Court relying on the decision of this Court in Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh. (1971) 1 SCR 844 held against the Government.

3. There is no dispute that in these appeals the demand notice is in respect of duty on liquor which has not been lifted.

4. The liquor contractors were subject inter alia to the following condition at auction which the Government wants to enforce:

"In case the fixed monthly quantity is not taken in any month, the concerning contractor shall be liable to pay to the Government the amount of PRATIKAR at the rate fixed by the Government for spiced spirit and plain spirit to the extent to which it would be less than the fixed monthly minimum quantity and the amount of such PRATIKAR shall be paid within the tenth day of the month which falls immediately after the month to which such shortage is concerned. Security to the extent of one sixth to one tenth of the whole of the amount of yearly PRATIKAR will have to be given."

Pratikar is excise duty.

5. T