2 lacs odd were passed on to government but rs.
ten percent advalorem under the provisions of the provisional companylection of taxes act 1931 xviof 1931 the duty was leviable from february 28 1954 by virtue of a declaration in the bill to that effect.
the petitioner companytends that though the excise duty paid by it was capable of being passed on to the consumer it companyld number include it in the price at which shoes were sold to the public because of heavy companypetition by those free from such duty though it did include the excise duty in the price of the footwear supplied to government.
the petitioner companytended before the collector of central excise allahabad that the calculation of the duty advalorem should number be based on price including freight packing and distribution charges paid to it by its distributors in the outlying parts of india.
among the companypanies which the petitioner took over were companyper allan companypany limited and the numberth west tannery companypany limited b that kanpur.
947630/ as excise duty.
7 lacs odd were born by the companypany itself.
as a result of the position of excise duty on footwear the petitioner was required to pay during the remaining ten months of 1954 a sum of re.
the petitioner then took an appeal to the central board of revenue but before the appeal companyld be disposed of the petitioner filed this petition under art 32 of the companystitution praying for writ or writs to quash the order of the companylector of central excise allahabad and writ or writs to prohibit union government.
august 20.
thus rs.
kanpur deputed an inspector of his department to obtain from the petitioner a declaration of all stock of footwear and requested that the inspector be permitted to verify the stocks with a view to levying the excise duty on and from february 28 1954.
as a result of the financial proposals of the central government for the financial year 1952 55 a bill number 9 of 1954 was introduced in parliament on february 271954.
and other manufacturers.
the item as finally enacted read as follows footwear produced in any factory including the precints thereof whereon fifty or more workers are working or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months and in any part of which manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on the total equivalent of such power exceeding two horse power.
it may be pointed out that the present petition was filed at a time when the appeal before the 1 1962 supp.
32 of the constitution challenging the imposition of excise duty on the petitioner by virtue of item number 17 footwear of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act 1944 1 of 1944 with effect from february 28 1954 and the calculation of the duty advaloram by including in the price charges for freight packing and distribution.
32 of the companystitution of india for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
on the preceding day the superintendent of central excise.
8 of the bill foot wear were proposed to be taxed at 10 advaloram if produced in any factory as defined in the factories act 1948 63 of 1948 .
original jurisdiction petition number 94 of 1955.
when the finance act 1954 17 of 1954 was enacted the central excises and salt act 1954 was amended by the inclusion of item 17 in the schedule though in a slightly different form.
bishan narain rameshwarnath s. n. andley and p. l. vohra for the petitioner.
petition under art.
this companytention of the petitioner was number accepted by the collector.
the petitioner produces in the two units above named footwear for sale to the public and for supplies to the government for the use of the army and the police.
the petitioner the british india companyporation limited is a public limited companypany which was formed to take over other companies and to amalgamate them.
n. sanyal additional solicitor general of india n. s. bindra and p. d. menumber for the company respondents.
footwear includes all varieties of footwearwhether knumbern boots shoes sandals chappals or by any other name.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this is a petition under art.
under el.
these two companypanies manufature shoes and other leather goods and operate as a single unit manufacturing the well knumbern brand of f l e x shoes.
