Countervailing duty on imported liquor accrued on import, and later destruction did not cancel the liability.

Countervailing duty was held payable on imported liquor once the taxable event of import occurred, even though the goods were later stored in a bonded warehouse and destroyed. The Court distinguished levy from collection: under Sections 27 and 28 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, the duty charge arose on import, while collection could be postponed in specified cases. Subsequent destruction of the goods did not extinguish the accrued liability, and the demand for countervailing duty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether countervailing duty remained payable on imported liquor stored in a bonded warehouse and later destroyed after import.

Analysis: Countervailing duty is attracted on import of excisable goods into the State, while excise duty is linked to manufacture. Under Section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, the charge arises on the taxable event of import, and Section 28 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 governs the manner of levy and permits postponement only of collection in specified cases. The distinction between levy and collection was material: once the taxable event occurred, subsequent destruction of the goods did not undo the accrued liability.

Conclusion: The demand of countervailing duty was valid and the challenge to it failed.

---