Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(74)ECR493(ALLAHABAD)
JUDGMENT
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, J977-78 is that the respondents be directed not to realise excise duty on the stdck 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.
4. 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.
5. No rejoinder affidavit to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, has been filed by the petitioners and, therefore, the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners never approached the respondents with a request that they be permitted to use the tobacco corp for agricultural purposes, have to be accepted. This being so, the contention of the petitioner that the tobacco was used for manure purposes and, therefore, they are not liable to pay excise duty, is not sustainable. On the other hand, the petitioners had opted to clear the tobacco on payment of duty under Rule 24 and, therefore, the D.D.I, had been issued against them, which we think, was rightly issued since the petitioners themselves had opted to clear the tobacco on payment of duty. No other submission has been made by counsel for the petitioner before us.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any legal infirmity in the demand of excise duty from the petitioners.
7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.