Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The two grounds are :

(i) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Parle Exports (Supra) and

(ii) The construction of the Customs Tariff Act.

This aspect of the contention is dealt with later in the judgment. However, it may be noted that in the decisions cited by the respondents the courts have recognised that interference under Article 226 with a decision of quasi judicial authority such as the respondent No. 1 was justified when there was a complaint of procedural irregularity of the kind that would invalidate the order. The failure to give a personal hearing before the order was passed would be such a procedural irregularity.

(b) An Article published in Brewers Digest, January 1981 which gives the nutritive value of beer.

(c) The decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bombay v. V. K. G. Shah .

(d) Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. reported in (1988) 38 -ELT 741.

IV. The final contention of the petitioner is that beer has been treated as a food article under the Customs Tariff Act 1975. It is contended that under the said Tariff Act, Section IV deals with food articles. Within that section chapter 22 deals with beverages which includes beer. It is contended that the chapter 24 of Section IV deals with food stuffs, Cigarettes and other tobacco preparations. Item No. 29 of the Table to the said notification refers to "High Speed Automatic wrappers other than cigarette Wrappers". According to the petitioners the fact that cigarette wrappers is specifically excluded would show that the phrase food article has been used in the body of the said notification in a very wide sense. Reliance has also been placed upon a notification bearing No. 6/85 dt. 2.1.86 relating to exemption of kitchen equipments imported by hotels. In the list of the said kitchen equipments, certain items such as Cocktail Mixers, Beverage Mixers and Draught Dispensing Units had been specified. According to the petitioner this also showed that beer was treated as an item of food dealt with in a kitchen.

(III) The petitioner was claiming an exemption therefore according to the principles of statutory construction, the onus was on the petitioner and any doubt was to be resolved against it. Reliance has been placed on Tata Export Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1985-22 ELT 732 in this connection.

(IV) The provisions of the Customs Tariff Act would also show that beer was beverage and that a clear distinction had been made between food products and beverages. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. .

34. The reliance on the case of Tata Export Ltd. v. Union of India (Supra) by the respondents to contend that the . onus was on the petitioner to prove that it is entitled to the benefit of the exemption was misplaced. In fact in that case the Court held :

"It is settled law that in a case of taxation the burden of proving that the necessary ingredients prescribed by the taxing provision are satisfied is entirely upon the taxing authority."

Even in the case of PARLE EXPORTS (Supra) the Supreme Court held that if two views of a notification are possible, it should be construed in favour of the subject as the notification is a part of a fiscal enactment.