SAMPATRAM KANHAIYA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(PAT)-1960-8-13
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on August 12,1960

SAMPATRAM KANHAIYA LAL Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNITED PROVINCES V. MT.ATIQA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. F GIAN CHAND KASTURI LAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The question of law arising for decision in this case is whether the following notification of the Government of India, No. 2-Salt/47, dated the 28th February, 1947, stating that a refund of duty paid on stocks of salt held on the 1st April, 1947, or in transit on that date will also be admissible subject to the conditions set out in the notification, comes within the ambit of Rule 8 framed by the Central Government in exercise of its rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act (Act I of 1944):
"No. 2-Salt/47 -- By Notification Nos. 1-Customs/47 and 1-Salt-47 of 28-2-1947. Salt imported into or manufactured in British India is with effect from 1-4-1947 exempted from payment of the duty leviable thereon. A refund of duty paid on stocks of salt held on 1-4-1947 or in transit on that date will also be admissible subject to the conditions set out in the following rules."

(2.)On the same day another notification had been issued by the Central Government which reads as follows:
"No. 1-Salt/47- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government is pleased to exempt, with effect from 1-4-1947, salt manufactured in or imported by land into British India from the whole of the duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944)". Section 38 of Act I of 1944 is also important. That section reads as follows:

"38. Publication of Rules and Notifications. All Rules made and Notifications issued under this Act shall be made and issued by publication in the Official Gazette. All such rules and notifications shall thereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that every such rule shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made, before Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more sessions, and if before the expiry of that period, Parliament makes any modification in the rule or directs that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be."

(3.)In this case the lower appellate Court has held that the notification In question does not fall under the statutory Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and so the plaintiff-appellants are not entitled to get a refund of the amount of duty paid, namely, a sum of Rs. 2127/1/- on the unsold quantity of salt on the 1st of April, 1947. In taking this view the lower appellate Court has followed the decision of the Punjab High Court in Union of India v. F. Gian Chand Kasturi Lal, AIR 1954 Punj 159.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.