- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE only relief sought in this writ petition by the petitioners who had grown tobacco crop during the crop year, 1977 -78 is that the respondents be directed not to realise excise duty on the stock of tobacco from the petitioners in respect of the crop year 1977 -78.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioners is that they used the tobacco for agricultural purposes and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the duty in view of Item 4.1 (7) to the 1st Schedule, appended to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly, the Act). It is correct to say that if the tobacco is used for agricultural purposes then no duty will be leviable in view of Item 4.1(7). However, in para 11 of the counter -affidavit, it is contended that the petitioners had opted for first clearance on payment of duty on their own accord and, accordingly, D.D.I. was issued to the petitioners, which they had signed and on which some of the petitioners had put their thumb impressions. It is denied in para 12 of the counter -affidavit that the petitioners ever made an application to the respondents for using the tobacco for agricultural purposes. Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, inter alia, states that notwithstanding the provision of Rule 9, unmanufactured products shall, immediately after they have been cured be cleared on payment of duty. In view of this rule, the respondents contended that the petitioners had opted to clear the tobacco crop on payment of duty and, therefore, D.D.I, had been issued against them.;