1982 (3) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....973, no excise duty was leviable on ingots, whether manufactured in the Main Steel Plants like Tata Iron and Steel, Rourkela, Bhillai or Durgapur Steel Plants or by Mini-Steel Plants with the aid of electric furnaces. However, product duty on flats manufactured from ingots coming from either source was levied as under : (i) Flats exceeding 5 mm but not exceeding 10 mm. Rs. 75/- per metric tonne. (ii) Flats exceeding 10 mm in thickness. Rs. 65/- per metric tonne. In addition to the above amount, regulatory excise duty at the rate of 50 per cent of the above said duty was levied. 2. On 1-3-1973, respondent No. 1, that is Union of India, issued notification No. 65/73 (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) under sub-rule (1) of r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment of so much of duty as was in excess of Rs. 165/-. Sub-clause (b) of the proviso at the end of the notification, however, provided that in the case of products mentioned in the aforesaid table made from steel ingots, on which appropriate duty of excise had already been paid, the duty specified in column (3) shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount of duty already paid on such steel ingots. 5. The petitioner-firm in this case has impugned the demand for excise duty on the basis of notification, annexure 'C', inter alia, on two grounds (1) that the goods in question were manufactured much before 1-3-1973 and the incidence of excise-duty being on the manufacture of goods, the excise levy of such goods would not be recoverab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s (P) Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1963 S.C. 98 had upheld this rule to be intra vires and expressly ruled that it did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, I find no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner-firm that sub-rule (1) of rule 8 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. 9. What now survives for consideration is the second ground of attack against the notification, annexure 'C', which in its working is said to be treating with uneven hand the persons similarly situated. 10. The impugned notification in actual effect gives concession and does not impose any addi....