Excise duty on illicit tobacco upheld: writ remedy, retrospective exemption, and limitation objections all failed.

A challenge to an excise demand arising from illicit receipt of unmanufactured tobacco was rejected because the earlier liability order had not been challenged and statutory appellate and reference remedies were available, so interference under Article 226 was unwarranted. Duty was held payable under Rule 9A(1)(ii) read with Rule 40, and the later withdrawal of duty on unmanufactured tobacco did not retrospectively remove liability for the earlier contravention. The demand was also held not to be time-barred, as the show cause notice followed detection of the contravention and the proceedings fell within the extended limitation framework for evasion cases. The demand and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the impugned demand was a continuation of an unchallenged earlier excise order and the statutory appellate and reference remedies under the Central Excise law were available; (ii) whether excise duty on the illicitly received tobacco was payable under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 excluded liability after withdrawal of duty on unmanufactured tobacco; (iii) whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the impugned demand was a continuation of an unchallenged earlier excise order and the statutory appellate and reference remedies under the Central Excise law were available.

Analysis: The earlier order of the Collector determining liability to pay duty for the contravention remained unchallenged. The impugned order was only a continuation of that order. The record also showed that the appellant had resorted to the statutory appellate and reference framework, and had not pursued the prescribed reference remedy to its logical end. In these circumstances, interference under Article 226 was not warranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether excise duty on the illicitly received tobacco was payable under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 excluded liability after withdrawal of duty on unmanufactured tobacco.

Analysis: Rule 40 treated receipt of unmanufactured tobacco without proper duty-paid documents as a contravention attracting duty and penalty. For such proceedings, the rate of duty was to be worked out under Rule 9A(1)(ii) as applicable on the date of removal or contravention. The withdrawal of duty on unmanufactured tobacco with effect from 1-3-1979 did not operate retrospectively to absolve liability for an earlier offence.

Conclusion: Rule 9A(1)(ii) applied and Rule 9A(5) did not defeat the demand; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The department issued the show cause notice immediately after detection of the contravention. The proceedings were therefore treated as falling within the extended period available where the demand arises from contravention of the Act or the rules with intent to evade duty. The appellant had also not specifically contested limitation at the relevant stage before the authority, and the challenge on limitation was not accepted.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand of excise duty and penalty was upheld, and the dismissal of the writ petition was left undisturbed.

---