ARISTOCRAT AGENCIES HYDERABAD Vs. EXCISE SUPERITENDENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which requires our consideration is whether countervailing duty is chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of issue of permit or on the date of actual import of liquor into the State

(2.) Brief facts necessary to answer the question may be noticed: The appellants are holders of distributor licence in Form F. L. 47 issued under Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 (hereinafter 'the Rules'). They held four permits and acquired them under the Rules on payment of countervailing duty, as was prevailing on the date when the permits were granted. First Import permit was granted to the appellant on 31st January, 1991 and 2nd, 3rd and 4th permits were granted on 6th February, 1991. However, before consignment of liquor was actually imported on the strength of those permits, notification (G. O. Ms. 96) dated 8th February, 1991 was issued. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on 9th February, 1991. By this notification, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter 'the Act') the Governor of Andhra Pradesh amended an earlier notification dated 30th September, 1968 and enhanced the rate of countervailing duty from Rs. 45. 00 per liter of the strength of proof spirit to Rs. 70. 00 per liter of the strength of proof spirit.

(3.) The appellants imported consignments of liquor under the first permit on 27th February, 1991 and on the basis of the second permit on 28th February, 1991. Consignment of liquor was imported on the basis of the 3rd and the 4th permit on 18th February, 1991. All these imports were effected during the validity of the permit, i. e. , within 30 days from the date of issue of permit. The Office of the Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad informed the appellant that since there had been enhancement of countervailing duty, by notification dated 8.2.1991 (published on 9.2.1991) from Rs. 45. 00 to Rs. 70. 00, the appellants were required to pay differential of the countervailing duty between the duty already paid by them and the enhanced countervailing duty, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The appellant questioned the validity of the demand by filing a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A Bench of the High Court, by a common judgment and order dated 8th November, 1991 dismissed the batch of cases including the writ petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.