High Court Of Calcutta
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee
BLACK DIAMOND BEVERAGES LTD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 05/04/1988
CENTRAL EXCISE - MODVAT SCHEME - WITHDRAWAL OF BENEFIT - NOTIFICATION - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE - GROUNDS - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - DISCRIMINATION - UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON TRADE AND BUSINESS - PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE - HELD, PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of aerated waters, challenged the validity of a notification withdrawing the benefit of the MODVAT scheme in respect of aerated waters. The petitioner contended that the withdrawal of the benefit was discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principle of promissory estoppel could not be invoked in this case as there was no clear and unambiguous promise given by the Prime Minister and Finance Minister to the industry that the MODVAT scheme would continue for a certain period. The court also held that the withdrawal of the benefit was not discriminatory as there was a rational basis for making a distinction between aerated waters and other food items. The court further held that the withdrawal of the benefit did not impose an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business. Finally, the court held that the principle of natural justice was not violated as the withdrawal of the benefit was a policy decision and not an individual action taken against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the withdrawal of the MODVAT scheme benefit was discriminatory? 2. Whether the withdrawal of the benefit was an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business? 3. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated by the withdrawal of the benefit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked where there is no clear and unambiguous promise given by the government. 2. A classification between goods for the purpose of granting or withdrawing a benefit is not discriminatory if there is a rational basis for the classification. 3. The withdrawal of a benefit does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade or business unless it is confiscatory in nature. 4. The principle of natural justice is not violated by a policy decision to withdraw a benefit.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS writ application was moved by the petitioner for a declaration that Central Excise Notification No. 203/87, dated 9th September, 1987 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 57a of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereby the Central Government made amendment in the notification of the Government of India and the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 177/86-Central Excise, dated 1st March, 1986 whereby the benefit of Modified Value Added Tax (referred to as MODVAT) system to aerated waters was withdrawn.
( 2 ) THE fact of this case in short is that the petitioners are manufacturers of aerated waters viz. 'gold Spot', 'limca', Thums Up', 'rim Zim' and 'bisleri Soda' which are manufactured in the factory of the petitioners at Calcutta. It is stated that the petitioner company is manufacturing aerated waters on the basis of raw materials supplied by M/s. Parle (Exports) Private Ltd.
( 3 ) AERATED waters, as excisable commodity was brought under Excise Duty with effect from 1st of March 1970 under Item No. 1-D in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. While the said levy was in force, the Central Government under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (referred to as the said Rule) issued a Notification No. 201/79-C. E. , dated 4-6-1979 as amended from time to time, exempted all excisable goods on which the duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the said Act, had been used as raw-materials or component parts from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise already paid upon the said raw-materials are components upon the terms and conditions mentioned therein. On the basis of the said Notification No. 201/79-C. E. , dated 4-6-1979, the petitioner company was availing the benefit of the exemption as a manufacturer of Aerated waters in regard to the bottles and crowns as well as synthetic essence known as 'non-alcoholic Beverages' fee under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the said Act and accordingly the petitioner No. 1 availed of set-off under the said Notification No. 201/79-C. E. , dated 4-6-1979 in respect of the excise duty paid upon the synthetic essence used in the manufacture of aerated waters.
( 4 ) UNDER the Proforma Credit system as contained Rule 56a of the said Rules, as manufacturer was permitted to receive raw-materials or components parts on which excise duty had been paid in his factory for the manufacture of excisable goods or for the more convenient distribution of the finished product, and was allowed a credit of duty already paid on such raw materials of component parts as the case may be. On the basis of the aforesaid rule, the petitioner No. 1 as a manufacturer was taking credit of duty already paid upon his raw materials and components while discharging their duty liabilities upon the finished product. However, the scheme under the Rule 56a of the said Rules, was restricted only to such raw-materials or component parts which fell under the same tariff item as the finish excisable goods. Again the proforma credit scheme was only applicable to those products which had been specifically notified under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 56a of the said Rules.
( 5 ) WHILE the benefit of set-off procedure and/or proforma credit scheme as stated hereinbefore, was vogue, the provisions of the said Act was amended so as to delete the First Schedule thereto with effect from 28. 6. 1986 by the Notification dated 5. 12. 1986 and to make-all excisable goods subject to duty at the rate set forth in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Act No. 5 of 1986 ). Under and in terms of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ). Under and in terms of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 the goods produced by the petitioner No. 1 were being classifiable under Chapter No. 22 thereof as 'beverages, Vinegars and spirits'.
( 6 ) W
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.