The power given to the legislature by Article 246 read with the relevant Entries in the Three lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution, are field for legislation or legislative heads of fields of legislation and that the widest amplitude should be given to the language of entries and that each word should be held to extend on ancillary and subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended in it.

( 1 ) A common question regarding the constitutional validity of Central Excise and Customs Laws Amendment Act, 1991 (Act 40 of 1991) (for short "amendment Act") arises in these Writ Petitions, therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE question arises in different factual contexts in these Writ Petitions. We propose to refer to facts in Writ Petition No. 8339 of 1992 to deal with the common question. Facts in the Writ Petitions will be referred to wherever necessary.

( 3 ) THE first petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and the second petitioner is a share-holder and the General Manager of the first petitioner-company (hereinafter the first petitioner will be referred to as "the company" ). The company manufactures "liquid Glucose" which is an excisable item under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short "the Central Excise Act" ). The Company classified "liquid Glucose under sub-heading 1702. 19 in Chapter XVII which was approved by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad Division (the third respondent ). The Company was paying Basic Excise Duty (BED) at 15% and Special Excise Duty (SED) at 10% on BED. With effect from 27/06/1991, the Company revised the classification list and classified Liquid Glucose under sub-heading 1702. 29. Under Rule 9b of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules"), provisional assessment was made and the said goods were cleared. On receiving chemical examiner s analytical report, the revised list was also approved on 22-11-1991, classifying the liquid glucose under sub-heading 1702. 20.

( 4 ) THE benefit that the Company derived by the revised classification is that under sub-heading 1702. 29 the Excise Duty payable is 10% BED plus SED at 10% on BED. The Company claimed that it paid excess Excise Duty for the period from 9-6-1991 to 14-10-1991. On 6-12-1991 the Company claimed refund of Excise Duty paid by it during the said period, from 9-6-1991 to 14-10- 1991, quantified BED at Rs. 14,53, 174. 00 and SED at Rs. 1,08,468/. The third respondent issued a show cause notice cause notice bearing No. V/17/18/19/91 (R), dated 25-5- 1992 calling upon the Company to show cause as to why the refund claim of Rs. 15,61, 742. 00 should not be rejected as being inadmissible in terms of Section 11d read with Section 11b of the Central Excise Act. On these facts the Company questioned the constitutional validity of Sections 11b and 11d of the Central Excise Act as amended by the Amendment Act, as being violative of Articles 265, 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

( 5 ) THE Assistant Collector of Central Excise filed counter- affidavit. It is stated that the goods manufactured by the Company were initially classified under sub-heading 1702. 19 which attracted BED of 15% and SED equal to 10% of BED. It is admitted that on 27-6-1991, the Company filed revised classification list under sub-heading 1702. 29. The reclassification was ordered for provisional assessment purposes on 15-10-1991. The Chemical Examiner by his report dated 11/11/1991, recommended the classification goods under sub-heading 1702. 29 and consequently the classification list was approved holding that the goods were rightly classifiable under sub-heading 1702. 29. Thereafter the Company filed refund claim of BED amounting to Rs. 14,53,174. 00 and SED of Rs. 1,08,408. 00 under Section 11b of the Central Excise Act on the ground that it paid excess Excise Duty for the period from 9-6- 1991 to 14-10-1991. A show cause notice bearing No. C. No. V/17/18/19/91 (R), dated 25-5-1992 was issued to the Company explaining that the refund claim was inadmissible in terms of Section 11d of the Central Excise Act read with Central Excise Hyderabad Collectorate Trade Notice No. 132 of 1991, dated 22-10- 1991 and Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, as the Company had already collected the Duty amount, subject matter of refund claim, from the buyers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document