The court upheld the legislative competence of the Union Parliament to enact the retrospective amendment and ruled that the trade notice issued by the Collector was unauthorized and illegal. The court directed the authorities to redetermine the assessments, recoveries, and refunds based on the actual duty paid by the petitioners.

Headnote:
EXCISE DUTY - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Section 4 (4) (d) (ii)
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, challenged the imposition of additional excise duty based on a trade notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise. They also challenged the retrospective amendment to Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and sought a mandamus for the refund of the difference of duty collected.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the challenge to the retrospective amendment but quashed the trade notice and directed the authorities to redetermine the assessments, recoveries, and refunds in accordance with the law and the court's observations.
Issues: 1. Validity of the retrospective amendment to Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Act. 2. Legality of the trade notice issued by the Collector. 3. Refund of the difference of duty collected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the legislative competence of the Union Parliament to enact the retrospective amendment. It also ruled that the trade notice issued by the Collector was unauthorized and illegal, as it added to the terms and conditions of the exemption notification issued by the Government. The court directed the authorities to redetermine the assessments, recoveries, and refunds based on the actual duty paid by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed in part and allowed in part, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.

K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) ON a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before a Division bench for disposal.

( 2 ) AS the questions of law that arise for determination in these cases are either common or interconnected, we propose to dispose them by a common order.

( 3 ) M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956, which is the petitioner in W. P. 3548 of 1978 is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and fertilisers, at its factory situated near Mangalore. M/s. Ballapir industries Limited, also a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the petitioner in W. P. No. 4766 of 1981, is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, liquid chlorine, Hydrochloric Acid and Sodium Tripoly-phosphate at its factory situated near Karwar. The goods manufactured by the petitioners are exigible to payment of excise duty under and in accordance with the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944) ('the Act' ).

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate properly one of the principal questions that is common in these cases, we consider it useful to set out the facts and contentions urged in W. P. No. 4766 of 1981 in some detail.

( 5 ) W. P. No. 4766 of 1981.- The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda at its factory situated at Karwar. Prior to 16-6-1976, caustic soda and caustic potash was dutiable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 14b of the Act at the rate provided therein.

( 6 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules of 1944 ('the Rules') framed under the Act, Government of India by its Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976 (published in the Gazette Extraordinary of the same date - Exhibit-A) partially exempted 'caustic soda' and 'caustic potash' dutiable under Tariff Item No. 14b subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in that notification for the period from 1-7-1976 to 31-3-1979 (vide Clause 6 of the notification ). The material portions of the said notification reads :- government OF INDIA department of Revenue and Banking new Delhi, the 16th June, 1976/26th Jyaistha, 1898 (Saka) notification central EXCISE in exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts the excisable goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as the specific goods) and falling under such Item Number of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table and cleared from one or more factories in excess of the base clearances by or on behalf of a manufacturer, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the said sub-rule (1) of the Rule 8 and in force for the time being), as is in excess of seventy-five per cent of such duty, subject to the following conditions, namely :- * * * * (2) After comparing the clearances of specified goods under sub-paragraph (1) the base period and base clearances, in relation to a factory, shall be determined as under :- * * * * (3) Notwithstanding the exemption granted by this notification, in respect of the excisable goods of the description specified against the Serial Numbers 23, 25 and 26 of the said Table and falling respectively under Items Nos. 26a (1) and 26b (1) 27 (a) (i) of the First Schedule to the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and subject to concessional rate of duty under this notification, the liability, in relation to such goods, for payment of duty in full at the rate applicable for this notification shall, for the purpose of Rule 56a of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or adjustment of duty, be deemed to have been discharged and the manufacturer shall indicate separately in the gate pass prescribed under the Rule 52a, read with sub-rule (2) of Rul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document