Excise duty exemption does not cancel licensing obligations where the notification and rules preserve the manufacturer's licence requirement.

An exemption from excise duty did not extinguish the separate statutory obligation to obtain a manufacturing licence where the notification and licensing rules expressly preserved that requirement for power-operated footwear factories. The petitioners therefore remained liable to secure a licence, and the challenge to the licensing notice failed. The court also held that writ jurisdiction was not appropriate because the Act provided effective objection, appeal and revision remedies that could be pursued against the licensing action. On that basis, the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether manufacturers of power-operated footwear factories, whose goods were exempt from excise duty up to the stated assessable value, were still required to obtain a licence under the Act and the Rules. (ii) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies provided under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether manufacturers of power-operated footwear factories, whose goods were exempt from excise duty up to the stated assessable value, were still required to obtain a licence under the Act and the Rules.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between liability to pay excise duty and the obligation to hold a licence for manufacture. The petitioners manufactured excisable goods within the meaning of the Act. The notification relied on by them exempted certain footwear from duty, but it expressly preserved the licensing requirement for power-operated footwear factories in the exempted sector. The licensing provisions under the Act and Rule 174 continued to apply notwithstanding the duty exemption.

Conclusion: The petitioners were required to obtain a licence, and the challenge to the licensing notice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies provided under the Act.

Analysis: The Act provided an effective statutory mechanism for objection, appeal, and revision. The petitioners could raise all their contentions before the licensing authority, and an appeal and further revision were available if the decision went against them. In the presence of such adequate remedies, interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the available alternative remedies.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the licensing requirement and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption from excise duty does not, by itself, extinguish a separate statutory requirement to obtain a licence where the notification and the licensing rules expressly preserve that obligation, and writ relief will ordinarily not be granted when efficacious statutory remedies are available.

---