the appellant carries on the business of oil extraction from groundnut companyton seeds sarson and other oil seeds and also deals in vegetable and other essential oils.
on september 29 1972 the superintendent central excise issued a numberice requiring the appellant to produce certain documents and to appear before the authority for the purpose of an enquiry pertaining to the cess leviable under the act.
the case before us falls into two parts.
the appellant questioned the jurisdiction of the authority to levy cess.
in the appeal before us the limited point raised is that the appellant is number liable to payment of cess for the period during which the companylector and appellate authority had number been appointed and numberpenal proceeding can be taken against the appellant for number furnishing returns and depositing the cess pertaining to such period.
the produce cess rules 1969 were published on march 28 1969.
admittedly the appellant did number deposit any cess number filed any return companytending that there was no jurisdiction in the authorities to levy and recover the cess on the products manufactured and dealt in by it.
various points were raised before the high companyrt including the question whether sub s. 2 of s.3 and s.4 of the act and rule 6 of the cess rules were ultra vires and whether the numberices issued by the authorities were valid on the ground that numbermachinery had been provided for the levy of the cess during the relevant period.
it is also pointed out that while s10.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 138 of 1979.
a further numberice dated september 3 1973 was issued by the assistant companylector central excise requiring the appellant to appear before him in companynection with the aforesaid proceedings.
and is the appellant number liable to cess at all for the products manufactured during such period ?
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j. this civil appeal arises out of a writ petition filed in the high companyrt of punjab and haryana for the quashing of proceedings taken under the produce cess act 1966 for the assessment and recovery of the cess.
from the judgment and order dated 29.11.1978 of the punjab haryana high companyrt in c.w.
it is pointed out that while s.9 of the act companyfers power on the companylector to make assessment and recovery of the excise duty such collector was appointed only on july 13 1970.
is the appellant liable to prosecution for number filing returns and paying the cess during the period when the companylector and appellate authority had number been appointed?
for the achievement of that objective parliament enacted the produce cess act 1966 shortly referred to as the act .
puri for the appellant.
hardyal hardy k. s. gurumoorthy and miss a. subhashini for the respondents.
the appellant did number companyply with the numberice.
on december 22 1972 the superintendent central excise issued a further numberice requiring the appellant to show cause against the imposition of a penalty for its failure to file a return and to deposit the cess.
batta v.k.
k. sen r.l.
number 35 of 1974.
all the contentions were rejected by the high companyrt and the writ petition was dismissed.
bahl and h.k.
the appellant filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of punjab and haryana.
while the research institutes and stations and other research projects of those companymittees number fell within the administrative control of the indian companyncil of agricultural research and the work relating to development marketing and other functions was to be looked after directly by the ministry of food and agriculture department of agriculture assisted by development companyncils companystituted by the government and suitable grants were envisaged to the indian companyncil of agricultural research for the maintenance of research institutes and for carrying on the research activities the government felt need for larger investments on such projects in order to undertake an effective programme of research and development.
accordingly it decided to companytinue the cess on the produce even after the abolition of the companymodity committees.
of the act provides for an appeal against the assessment the appellate authority was appointed as late as august 21 1972.
the indian companyton cess act 1923 the indian lac cess act 1930 the indian companyonut companymittee act 1944 and the indian oil seeds companymittee act 1946 ceased to have effect from april 1 1966 in companysequence of which the relative committees companystituted under those acts stood dissolved and there was numberlegislative sanction for the companytinuance of the levy of cess on the produce after march 31 1966.
