Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a licence in Form L-6 under the Central Excise Rules conferred an unrestricted right to obtain power alcohol from a distillery without complying with the permit and control requirements under the Indian Power Alcohol Act, the rules made thereunder, and the U.P. excise regulations.
Analysis: The licence under the Central Excise law only authorised receipt and use of power alcohol without payment of duty for specified industrial purposes. It did not dispense with the separate statutory regime governing manufacture, disposal, transport, and issue of power alcohol under the Indian Power Alcohol Act, 1948, and the rules framed under that Act. Those rules required compliance with the prescribed procedure, and the proviso to the relevant rule permitted issue direct from a distillery only under the permission of the competent authority. The Chapter IX U.P. excise rules incorporated by the Power Alcohol Rules were applicable, and the petitioners' reliance on Article 19(1)(g) could not override valid regulatory restrictions.
Conclusion: The licence in Form L-6 did not create an absolute right to obtain power alcohol without the required permit and compliance with the applicable control provisions. The challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A licence granted under the Central Excise law for duty-free industrial use does not override independent statutory controls regulating the supply and issue of power alcohol under the special enactment and rules governing that commodity.