section 51 of the finance act provides that the amendments in rules 9 and 49 of the rules shall be deemed to have and to have always had the effect on and from the date on which the rules came into force i.e. 28th february 1944.
after the said amendments of the rules with retrospective effect the appellants amended the writ petition and challenged the constitutional validity of section 51 of the finance act 1982 and of the amendments to rules 9 and 49 of the rules.
the appellants did number dispute that the different kinds of fabrics which were manufactured in the miff were liable to payment of excise duty on their removal from the factory.
this court agreed with the delhi high companyrt and upheld the vires of rules 9 and 49 of the rules as well as section 51 of the finance act 1982.
dated 20th february 1982 amended rules 9 and 49 of the rules.
soli j. sorabjee ravinder narain da.
in the said circular the board had directed the subordinate excise authorities that use of goods in manufacture of anumberher companymodity even within the place premises that have been specified in this behalf by the central excise officers in terms of the powers companyferred under rule 9 of the rules will attract duty.
the present writ petition filled in this companyrt had inter alia pleaded that the retrospective amendment of rules 9 and 49 of the rules as well as section 51 of the finance act 1982 be declared as ultra vires of the companystitution.
during the pendency of the writ petition in the delhi high court the central government by numberification number 20/82 c.e.
original jurisdiction writ petition civil number 3 of 1983.
this writ petition is stated to be companyered by the decision of this companyrt in j.k companyton spinning and weaving mills limited anumberher v. union of india and others 1988 1 s.c.r.
it was the case of the appellants that in spite of the said decision of the delhi high companyrt the central board of excise had wrongly issued a circular dated 24th september 1980 purporting to interpret rules 9 and 49 of the central excise rules 1944 hereinafter referred to as the rules and directing the subordinate excise authorities to levy and companylect duty of excise in accordance therewith.
on a writ petition by those appellants the delhi high companyrt by its judgment dated 16th october 1980 held that yarn obtained and further processed within the factory for the manufacture of fabrics companyld number be subjected to duty of excise.
the yarn so obtained was further processed in an integrated process in the said composite mill for weaving the same into fabrics.
as the said circular was being implemented to the prejudice of the appellants they filed the writ petition before the delhi high companyrt inter alia challenging the validity of the said circular.
they also did number dispute their liability in respect of yarn which was also removed from the factory.
in order to manufacture the said fabrics yarn was obtained at an intermediate stage.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by yogeshwar dayal j. this order will dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions under article 32 of the companystitution of india.
it was the contention of the appellants therein that numberduty of excise could be levied and companylected in respect of yam which was obtained at an intermediate stage and thereafter subjected to an integrated process for the manufacture of different fabrics.
with p. number.
radha rangaswamy and p. parmeshwaran for the respondents.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india .
chari ms.
4oo 402 425 492 2493 2495 2526 2528 of 1983 and 1256 of 1987.
the appellants in the said case had a composite mill wherein it manufactured fabrics of different types.
