Separate bottling licence fee valid under excise law where bottling is treated as an independent licensable activity.

The U.P. Excise Act, 1910 permitted bottling of foreign liquor only under licence, and the statutory scheme also authorized prescription of licence fees. Section 17(d) barred bottling for sale without a licence under Section 18, Section 24 covered licences for manufacturing and sale, Section 28(d) recognised excise or countervailing duty on excisable articles, and Section 41(c) empowered the Excise Commissioner to fix the scale or manner of fees for licences, permits or passes. Bottling was treated as a distinct licensable activity, so the fact that it occurred alongside manufacture, or that excise duty was already payable, did not exclude a separate bottling licence fee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 empowered the Excise Commissioner to levy a licence fee for bottling foreign liquor, and whether no such fee could be imposed because bottling formed part of the manufacturing process and excise duty was already payable on the liquor manufactured.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted bottling only under authority of licence, with Section 17(d) prohibiting bottling for sale except under a licence granted under Section 18. Section 24 authorized grant of licences for manufacturing, supplying and selling liquor, Section 28(d) contemplated levy of excise or countervailing duty on excisable articles manufactured under licence, and Section 41(c) expressly empowered the Excise Commissioner to prescribe the scale or manner of fees payable for any licence, permit or pass. On that basis, the bottling licence fee was within the rule-making power. The Court also held that bottling was a distinct activity requiring a separate licence, and the fact that bottling occurred in the same plant as manufacture, or that excise duty was already levied, did not negate the statutory power to charge a separate licence fee.

Conclusion: The levy of licence fee for bottling of liquor was valid and not ultra vires the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory framework authorizes a separate bottling licence fee, and bottling can be regulated as an independent licensable activity even where it is connected with manufacture.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a liquor statute expressly authorizes licensing and fee prescription, a separate fee may be imposed for bottling as a distinct regulated activity even if bottling is associated with manufacture and excise duty is otherwise levied.

---