Liquor licence consideration is contractual rental, not excise duty, and shortfall demands for undrawn quantity are enforceable.

Under liquor licences granted for the State's exclusive privilege to vend country liquor, the stipulated lump sum recovered from contractors was contractual consideration or rental, not excise duty, because excise duty attached to manufacture or production rather than retail sale or the licence price. The fact that the issue price or remission formula referred to excise-duty components did not change the character of the payment. A shortfall demanded on failure to lift the guaranteed quantity was likewise only enforcement of the contractual bargain, since no excise duty was levied on undrawn liquor. The contractual demands were therefore upheld and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amounts recovered from liquor contractors under the guarantee and exclusive privilege systems were excise duty or contractual consideration for the grant of the privilege to sell country liquor; (ii) Whether the shortfall demanded on failure to lift the guaranteed quantity could be treated as levy of excise duty on undrawn liquor.

Issue (i): Whether the amounts recovered from liquor contractors under the guarantee and exclusive privilege systems were excise duty or contractual consideration for the grant of the privilege to sell country liquor.

Analysis: The licences were granted under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and the relevant rules as arrangements for grant of the State's exclusive privilege to vend liquor. The stipulated lump sum was fixed by offer and acceptance or auction, and represented the price or rental for obtaining that privilege. The levy of excise duty, on the other hand, was on manufacture or production, not on retail sale or on the contractual price paid for the privilege. The inclusion of excise-duty-related components in the issue price or in the remission formula did not convert the contractual payment into a tax.

Conclusion: The amounts were contractual consideration for the exclusive privilege and not excise duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the shortfall demanded on failure to lift the guaranteed quantity could be treated as levy of excise duty on undrawn liquor.

Analysis: The shortfall represented the balance of the agreed contractual amount after accounting for any remission earned by lifting liquor. The remission mechanism merely measured the extent of reduction in the contractual liability by reference to the excise-duty component of the issue price. No excise duty was imposed on undrawn liquor, and the contractors' liability to pay the stipulated sum existed independently of the quantity lifted. The demand therefore enforced the bargain under the licence and did not impose a fresh excise levy.

Conclusion: The shortfall could not be treated as excise duty on undrawn liquor.

Final Conclusion: The contractual demands under the liquor licences were upheld as recovery of the agreed consideration for the exclusive privilege, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A stipulated sum payable under a liquor licence for the State's exclusive privilege to vend liquor is contractual consideration or rental, and a remission formula linked to excise-duty components does not transform the balance payable into excise duty on undrawn liquor.

---