Removal-date duty rate under central excise upheld as a valid rule regulating levy and collection.

Rule 9-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was upheld as consistent with the charging scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 because the Act imposed duty on manufactured goods while leaving the manner of levy and collection to rules. The Court accepted that using the date of actual removal as the point for applying the rate of duty fit the statutory scheme, including the valuation framework in section 4 and legislative supervision through the laying requirement. The challenge based on excessive delegation failed because the Act fixed the basic policy and rate, and the rule operated only as a procedural mechanism for levy and collection.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 9-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was ultra vires in so far as it applied the rate of excise duty prevailing on the date of removal of goods, and whether the rule was invalid on the ground of excessive delegation.

Analysis: Excise duty is a duty on manufacture or production, but the law does not require that it must be levied only at the stage of manufacture. Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 imposed duty on excisable goods produced or manufactured in India and left the manner of levy and collection to be prescribed by rules. Section 4 used the time of removal as the relevant point for valuation, and the statutory scheme, together with the long-standing operation of Rule 9-A and parliamentary supervision through the laying requirement, supported the conclusion that the rule was consistent with the Act. The rule therefore validly fixed the date of actual removal as the point for applying the rate of duty. The challenge based on excessive delegation also failed because the basic policy and rate were fixed by the Act and the rule only regulated the manner of levy and collection.

Conclusion: Rule 9-A was upheld as valid, and the levy at the rate in force on the date of removal was sustained. The challenge to the rule failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not succeed, and the Court upheld the excise authorities' application of the rate prevailing at the time of removal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the charging statute fixes the duty and rate but authorises rules to prescribe the manner of levy and collection, a rule selecting the date of actual removal as the point for applying the rate of duty is valid if it is consistent with the statutory scheme and subject to legislative control.

---