Manufacturers must obtain license for listed goods under Central Excise law to ensure revenue control.

The Court held that manufacturers of goods listed in the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act must obtain a license under Section 6 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, regardless of duty exemptions. The obligation to obtain a license is essential for revenue control, even if certain goods are exempt from excise duty. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that a search and seizure by the Central Excise Department constituted coercion, emphasizing that compliance with licensing requirements is necessary under the law, and failure to do so led to the dismissal of the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether a manufacturer of goods listed in the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act is required to obtain a license under Section 6 of the Central Excises & Salt Act.
2. Whether exemption from payment of excise duty on certain goods absolves the manufacturer from the obligation to obtain a license.
3. Whether a search and seizure conducted by the Central Excise Department constitutes coercive action.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of spectacle frames, claimed that their goods fell under a tariff sub-heading exempt from duty. However, they had operated without a license under Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Court held that manufacturing goods listed in the First Schedule of the Tariff Act necessitates obtaining a license, irrespective of duty exemption.

2. The petitioner cited a ruling from the Allahabad High Court, arguing that duty exemption obviated the need for a license. The Court distinguished the ruling, emphasizing that exemption from duty does not negate the requirement for a license under Section 6 or Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. Licensing is essential for revenue control, regardless of duty exemptions.

3. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of coercion due to a search and seizure, noting that the petitioner, a company, had ample opportunity to defend against prosecution for operating without a license. The Court emphasized that fear of prosecution does not justify obtaining a license under duress. The petitioner's failure to obtain a license as required by law led to the dismissal of the writ petitions.

---