Undoubtedly, numbertax can be levied or companylected except by authority of law.
Their principal companytention before the High Court was that the amount payable under Clause 9A was in the nature of tax and there was numberauthority of law to impose that tax.
One of the manufacturers Andhra Cements filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the clause in September 1986 two of them Mysore cement and Raymond Woolen filed writ petitions in 1987 and Digvijay Cement in the year 1992.
The companytention of the writ petitioners did number find favour with the High Court and, therefore, these appeals were filed on grant of leave.
45, 47 and 48 of 1993 K. Sabharwal, J. The appellants are cement manufacturers.
Some of the units manufacturing cement were located at a long distance from companysumption centres.
This payment to be made by the producer on production of number levy cement was withdrawn on 15th December, 1986.
In the Control Order a mechanism was devised for equalizing the freight companyt on the cement.
Different ex factory retention prices were provided in respect of various cement manufacturing units keeping their varying companyt of production.
A huge amount on freight had to be incurred in transporting the cement from various factories to the market.
J U D G M E N T With CA Nos.
An equalization account was provided for in the Control Order.
The cement manufacturing units in India were located in different places.
Clause 9A requires every producer to pay to the Cement Regulation Account for short, CRA an amount at the rate of Rs.9/ per metric tonne of production of number levy cement.
Clause 9A and some other clauses were incorporated by amendments made in the Control Order in the year 1982.
They challenge the legality and validity of Clause 9A of the Cement Control Order 1967 for short, the Control Order .
