Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of judgement and order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge discharging the Rule. The appellant-petitioner in the main rule was paying cess at the rate of 17 paise per quintal under Section 3 of the Oil Seeds Committee Act, 1946. On 1.4.66 the Act ceased to have effect. The Produce Cess Act came into force on 21st of May, 1966 when President's assent was received. In May 1967 the petitioner appellant was asked to pay the differential cess as under the Produce Cess Act and that cess has been raised from 17 paise per quintal to 60 paise per quintal. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to pay certain amount as differential cess as the cess was revised from 21.5.1966 when the Act came into force. But it appears that the demand of the differential cess was calculated with effect from 1.4.66. On the face of it this calculation is patently wrong. The Produce Cess Act came into force on 21.5 66, when the assent of the President was obtained. Therefore, between 1.4.66 and 21.5.66 no cess under the Act can be asked to be paid.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the said order to pay the differential cess as per demand notice dated 25.12.67, the petitioner appellant moved this court and obtained a rule, which was, however, discharged by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 6th of June, 1975. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. Chakraborty on behalf of the appellant urged two points before us for our consideration. First of all he contended that there was no appointment of Collector or Assistant Collector or Superintendent of Central Excise under Section 2(a) of the Produce Cess Act who can exercise power under the said Act. Mr. Sanyal on behalf of the respondents, however, contended that on the basis of S. .15(2) of the Act the officers of the Central Excise are empowered and the Salt Act and rules made thereunder are applicable to this case. In our opinion, this argument advanced by Mr. Sanyal can not be accepted to be correct. It appears to us that Section 15 of the Act only provides for procedure for levy and collection of tax. The rules of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 or for that matter the Customs Act of 1962 were taken into consideration. Though the rule making power has been provided under the Act, the Central Government has not yet framed any rule while they are covered by the rules as framed under the Central Excise & Salt Act. Mr. Sanyal therefore contended that the Collector of Customs appointed under the Central Excise and Salt Act has all powers under Section 2(a) of the Produce Cess Act as Collector. In our opinion, that can not be correct. Now, it appears that in 1969 the Government had exercised powers under Section 2(a) of the Produce Cess Act and appointed Collector by a notification published in 26th of March, 1969. The said notification runs as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of section 2 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 (15 of 1966), the Central Government hereby appoints the Officers specified in Col (2) of Table below to perform within the areas specified in the corresponding entry in Col. (3) of the said Table, the duties of a Collector under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder in so far as the relate to the levy and collection of the cess referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, inspect of the produce specified in the corresponding entry in Col. (4) of the said Table. JUDGEMENT_47_LAWS(CAL)9_19801.html (No. 11-17/67-C.C.I) S.J. Majumdar Addl. Secretary";