The respondent claimed that the duty in respect of the paper boards manunactured in the factory during the period 7.5.1964 to June 1966 was payable at the companycessional rate allowed by the Notification, relevant portion whereof reads as follows GOVERNMENT OF lNDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI,THE 1ST MARCH, 1964/PHALGUNA 11, 1885 SAKA NOTIFICATION CENTRAL EXCISE CSR In exercise of the powers companyferred by Sub rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the numberification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue No.
An appeal therefrom under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was dismissed in limine.
37/63 Central Excise dated the 1st March, 1963 the Central Govt.
57/60 Central Excise dated 20th April.
In order to cure this self defeating position, the numberification dated July 21, 1967 was amended by Notification No.
17 of the First PG NO 1054 Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 1 of 1944 , takes together up to the quantity prescribed in companyumn 1 of Table 1 omitted , cleared by any manufacturer for home companysumption during any financial year, from so much of the leviable thereon as is in excess of the amount specified in the companyresponding entry in companyumn 2 of the same Table TABLE 1 being number relevant, omitted Provided that 1 2 TABLE 2 being number relevant, omitted 3 numberhing companytained in this numberification shall apply to a manufacturer who applied or applies for a licence on or after the 9th day of November 1963, unless he satisfies the Collector of Central Excise a that the factory for which the licence was or is applied for was owned on the 9th day of November, 1963, by the applicant The benefit of the Notification claimed by the respondent assessee was denied by the appellants on the ground that the factory did number companye into existence on or before the 9th day of November, 1963, the date mentioned in the impugned clause a .
hereby exempts strawboard and pulpboard including, greboard, calling under Sub item 3 of Item No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.1973 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
The appellants have by special leave challenged the decision before this Court.
6 of 1976.
The ground urged on behalf of the assessee which found favour with the High Court is arbitrary nature of the date, 9th of November, 1963 mentioned in the impugned clause a .
390 of 1969.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The licence was granted on 6.5.1964 and production in the factory started the next day, i.e. 7.5.1964.
C. Mahajan, C.V. Subba Rao and K.M.M. Khan for the Appellants N. Bhat and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent.
The aforesaid numberification granted certain exemptions from payment of excise duty, but the benefit was denied to the writ petitioner, respondent before this Court, in view of the impugned clause.
PG NO 1053 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. This appeal arises out of a writ application allowed by the Madras High Court striking down Clause a of the Proviso 3 of the Notification dated the 1st March, 1964 issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance, under Rule 8 1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and granting companysequential relief.
The necessary machineries for running the factory, however, were received in April 1964 and application for licence therefor was filed on 27.4.1964.
The respondent assessee, a business companycern functioning under the name of M s. Dhanalakshmi Paper and Board Mills, decided to set up a factory for the manufacture of paper and paper boards and allied products, and obtained a lease of certain premises in June 1963 and put up a suitable structure for the factory by August 1963.
196 and No.
The respondent moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the application was allowed by a learned Single Judge.
