LexSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR. versus AYYANGAR MATCH WORKS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F H 868 SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR. l'. A YY ANGAR MATCH WORKS ETC. December 4, 1975 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. s. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Central Excise Salt Act, 1944-S. 3-Noti/ication dated 4 September. 1967 givillg concessional m'e of duty to small manufacturers of matchcs-Klwdi and Village /!ldustries Commission-If competent to grant certificate under the noti- ticatidn. For the purpose of protecting the smalier manufacturers 'from the com~ti tion of' larger manufacturers, the Government of India, by a notification dated 21 July 1967, amended by notification dated 4 September, 1967, declared a concessional rate of duty to those manufacturers who had filed a declaration before 4 September 1967 that their estimated annual clearance would be Jess than 75 million match slicks. This Court in Union of India v. Parameswamn Match Works efc. [1975] 2 S.C.R. 573 setting aside the judgment of the High Court holding that classification was invalid, held the classification fo1:1nded on a particular date to be reasonable; and the concessional rate would be availed of even by those manufacturers who came to the field after 4 September, 1967 if they satisfied the condition in clause (d) of the notification regarding quantity of matches and are recommended by the Khadi alid Village Industries. Commission for exemption. The respondent filed declarations on 22 Dzcember. 1967 that they would not produce more than 75 million match sticks during the year 1969-70 and claimed to be entitled to the concessional rate of excise duty. ' In appeal to this Court the rzspondents sought to support the judgment of the High Court on the grounds ( i) that they were entitled to the exemption on the basis of clause (d) of the notification; and (ii) that the Khadi and ViJlage Industries CommissiOn was not competent to make any recommendation. Allowing the appeal, HELD : ( 1) The appeals are covered by the decision of this Court in Parameswaran Match Works case and no case is made out by the respondents on the basis of exemption under cl. ( d) of the notification. There is no allega- tion in the petition that the respondents came into the field after 4 Septem- ber 1967 or that they· started manufacturing the matches after 4 September, 1967 or that they were recommended by the Khadi and Village Industries Com- mission. [871 D & B] (2) Under s. 15(h) of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 the Commission may take steps in ensuring the genuineness of, and for granting certificates to producers of, or dealers in,. Khadi or the products of any village industry. Therefore, the Commission is competent to recommend for exemption under cl. (d) of the Notification. [871F-G] C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 133-188 of 1975. [Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgments and Orders cfated the (1) 29-4-1970, (2) 28-7-1970, (3) 12-3-1970, (4) 28-7-1970, (5) 7-9-1970, (6) 7-4-1970 & (7) 12-3-1970 of the Madras High Court at Madras in (1) W.P. Nos. 2929, 3253 and 68, 123 and 260 of 1970, (2) W.P. Nos. 1606 and 1607 /70, (3) W.P. Nos. 1998, 2484, 2567, 2568, 2569, 2663-65, 3046, 3125, 3126, 3182, 3363- 65, 3410, 3508, 3555-60, 3630, 3631, 3667-3668, 3810-3812 and I \. SUPDT. CENTRAL EXCISE V. AY¥ANGAR M;ATCH WORKS (Ray, C.J.) 869 3650 of 1969, (4) W.P. Nos. 2647, 2648/69 and 1121, 1451, A 1452 and-1495 and 1496 of 1970, (5) W.P. Nos. 1912, 1913, 1919, 2123 2318 2516 and 2610 of 1970, (6) W.P. Nos. 2088, 2317 and l, 2515f70 a~d (7) W.P. No. 3666 of 1969 respectively]. Niren De, Attorney General of India and R. N. Sachthey, for the Appe!lants. '· ) I ) ,i M. R. M. Abdul Karim and Shau/wt Hussain for the Respondents (In Cas. Nos. 137, 140, 149, 152-155, 164, 169, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183 and 187/75.) Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for the Respondents (In CA No. 177 of 1975). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 11th December, 1968 in writ petition No. 3838 of 1968 in the High Court at Madras. c In the present appeals the writ petitions in the High Court were D allowed following the judgment of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition No. 3838 of 196~. In Civil Appeals No. 262-273 of 1971 arising out of the com- mon iudgment dated 11 December, 1968 of the High Court at Mad- ras in writ petition No. 3838 of 1968 this Court in the decision in U1Zion of Ind
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.