MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 17-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
.. "' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD . 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BIHAR & ORS. 
October 17, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, CJ., S. M. SJKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT, 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Bihar & Orissa Excise Act (2 of 1915), ss. 27, 28 and r. 147-
lncrease in duty on liquor-Jncreas.ed rate 
whether 
leviable on goods 
imported after payment of duty before date from which increased duty 
payable-Rule 147, proviso whether justifies 
realisation 
of enhanced 
levy in such case. 
The petitioner was a company manufacturing Indian made foreign 
liquor in Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. It had depots for sale 
of its products at Patna and Ranchi 
in the State of 
Bihar. Before 
October 13, 1967 it imported foreign liquor into the State of Bihar from 
Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for purposes of sale at its Patna 
and Ranchi depots on payment of duty at the then current rate. 
Duty 
on liquor from Himachal Pradesh was paid upon or before importation 
hv making deposits in the State Bank of India at Patna and Ranchi. 
Duty on liquor from Uttar Pradesh was paid on importation by malting 
deposits with the, 
government of 
that State. By 
notification 
dated 
October 13, · 1967 duty on foreign liquor was enhanced with effect from 
Noyember 1, 1967. 
The Superintendent of Excise, Patna directed the 
company to pay the difference in duty 011 the opening balance of Indian 
made foreign liquor in its stock on November l, 1967. The company 
challenged the demand in a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu-
tion. Apart from ss. 27 and 28 of the Act the respondent State re.Jied 
on the proviso to r. 147 of the Rules made under s. 90 of the Act. 
HELD : (i) The foreign liquor was imported before November 1, 
1967 on payment of duty at the current rate in the manner indicated in 
s. 28(a) (i). Duty on imported foreign liquor was enhanced with effect 
from November 1, 1967. Sections 27 and 28 did not authorise the 
levy of the enhanced duty on the liquor imported before November 1, 
1967 but lying with the importer 011 that date. 
(ii) A close scrutiny of r. 147 reveals that the main part and the 
proviso deal with the same subject-matter. 
The expression "an excisable 
article" in the proviso means foreign liquor imported under bond and 
other articles on which duty is payable befqre removal from the excise 
warehouse or distillery where they are kept. It is for this reason that 
under the proviso the difference of duty is realised from or credited to 
the licensee to whom the article has been issued from the excise ware-
house or distillery on payment of duty prior to such 
revision. 
The 
proviso_ d0C:5 not apply to all imported foreign liquor. It applies only 
to foreign hquor import~d under bond, that is to say, foreign liquor on 
which duty has been .levied under s. 28(a) (ii) by payment upon issue 
for s.ale from an excise warehouse. It does not apply to foreign liquor 
not imported under bond upon which duty has 
been levied 
under 
s. 28(a)(i). 
~e petitioner's foreign liquor was not imported 
under 
bond. 
The petitioner was therefore not liable to pay under the proviso 
3 Sup.C.1./69-12 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1969} 2 S.C.R. 
to r. 147 the difference of duty in respect of its stock of foreign liquor 
on November 1, 1967. 
The demand for 
payment of 
the 
difference· 
of duty in respect of this stock was not authorised by the Act or the provi•o 
to r. 147. [460 C--F] 
ORIGINAL JurusmcnoN: Writ Petition No. 14 of 1968. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforce-
ment of the fundamental rights. 
M. C. Chagla, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and S. K. Khanna, 
for the petitioners. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General and D .. P. Singh, for the 
respondents. 
.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. The petitioner company, Mohan Meakin Bre-
weries Ltd., mai11ufactures and sells Indian made foreign liquor. 
Its distilleries are situated at Solan in Himachal Pradesh and at 
Lucknow and M.ohan Nagar in Uttar Pradesh. It has depots for 
sale of its products at Patna and Ranchi in the State of Bihar. 
Before October 13, 1967 it imported foreign liquor into the State 
of Bihar from Solan, Lucknow and Mohan Nagar for purposes of 
sale at its Patna and Ranchi depots on payment of duty at the 
then current rate of. Rs. 14.40 L.P. litres. Duty on the liquor 
from Solan was paid upon or before importation by making depo-
sits in the State Bank of India at Patna and Ranc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.