Court fee payment under Central Excise Rules may validly be made by crossed demand draft, not stamps.

An application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 attracted the payment mechanism in Rule 218(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Note 3 to Form E.A. 6, not Section 69 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The prescribed fee was to be paid through a crossed bank draft in favour of the Registrar of the High Court on a nationalised bank at the place where the High Court is situated. A demand draft complying with that requirement was valid, and insistence on payment by stamps was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court fee payable on an application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had to be collected only in stamps under Section 69 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, or could validly be paid by crossed demand draft as prescribed in the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The fee in question was payable under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was governed by Rule 218(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Note 3 to Form E.A. 6. Section 69 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 did not govern such fee. Note 3 expressly required payment of Rs. 200/- through a crossed bank draft drawn in favour of the Registrar of the High Court on a nationalised bank at the place where the High Court is situated. The demand draft submitted by the petitioner conformed to that requirement, and the Registry's insistence on payment by stamps was untenable.

Conclusion: The objection of the Registry was rejected, and the petitioner was directed to furnish a fresh demand draft or revalidate the existing one in accordance with the prescribed form.

---