1960 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses petition challenging oil seeds cess demand under Indian Oil Seeds Committee Act. Lessees exempt from owner obligations. Assessments not limited.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demand for oil seeds cess under the Indian Oil Seeds Committee Act. It held that the petitioner, as ... Cess on Oil seeds - Duty liability - Power of Collector Issues:1. Liability of the petitioner to pay oil seeds cess under the Indian Oil Seeds Committee Act.2. Interpretation of the term 'owner' under Section 10(1) of the Act.3. Assessment period for making an assessment under the Act.4. Power conferred on the Collector for making assessments under Rule 33.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a sole proprietor of a mill, was issued a notice of summary demand to pay oil seeds cess under the Indian Oil Seeds Committee Act. The petitioner contested the demand, leading to the filing of a writ petition to quash the demand notice and the District Judge's order. The court examined the petitioner's liability based on the Act's provisions and rejected the contention that the petitioner, as a lessee during a specific period, was exempt from the cess obligation.2. The court analyzed the Act's provisions, specifically Section 10(1), which requires the mill owner to furnish returns to the Collector. The petitioner argued that as a lessee during a certain period, he should not be considered the 'owner' responsible for the cess. The court interpreted the term 'owner' in a manner that held the owner primarily accountable for the cess, emphasizing that a lessee does not fall under the definition of 'owner' for the purpose of cess liability.3. The issue of the assessment period for making an assessment under the Act was also addressed. The court examined Section 11 of the Act, which empowers the Collector to assess the duty payable based on returns submitted. The court rejected the argument that assessments could only be made for a period not exceeding one month. Citing precedents, the court held that there is no explicit limitation on the assessment period, allowing for assessments beyond a single month.4. The court considered the power conferred on the Collector for making assessments under Rule 33. The petitioner contended that Rule 33 lacked specific guidelines for assessment, suggesting unregulated power. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that the Collector's orders are subject to revision by the District Judge, ensuring oversight and correction of any errors in assessments. The court concluded that the power to make assessments was not uncanalized and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for issuing a writ of certiorari and upheld the Collector's assessment. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs, including advocate fees, to the respondents.