The appellant, a wholesale liquor supplier, challenged a Single Judge order dismissing a writ petition against its liability to reimburse 'excise revenue' on broken bottles of liquor in transit. The Court held the Single Judge's conclusion correct and dismissed the appeal.
Nothing granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Pronounced on: January 04, 2016
Versus D.T.T.D.C. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vikrant Yadav & Mr. K.P.Pathak, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Elgin Matt Johan, Adv. for R4. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat & Ms. Gunjan Bansal, Advs. for R-5&7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
J U D G M E N T
G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE
LPA 330/2005 Page 1 of 7
contract by the Corporation for wholesale supply of country liquor and Rum in Delhi.
LPA 330/2005 Page 2 of 7
Modi Industries Limited and another v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and ors , DRJ 1992(24) 149 . However, the dispute is regarding the component of „excise revenue‟ on such transit wastage. While the Corporation claims that apart from „special duty‟ the appellant /writ petitioner is liable to pay the „excise revenue‟ also on transit wastage of liquor, the appellant /writ petitioner contends that they are not liable to pay the same and therefore, the Corporation is not entitled to recover/deduct any amount from their bills towards „excise revenue‟ on transit wastage.
LPA 330/2005 Page 3 of 7
Tripartite Agreement entered into between the Corporation, the Commissioner of Excise and the appellant, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant who is a wholesale licensee is liable to pay only „special duty‟ on transit wastage but not „excise revenue‟. Pointing out that the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 has been amended by Act No.12 of 1979 w.e.f. 20.01.1979 by virtue of which „special duty‟ has been included in the duty on excisable articles, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the said amendment was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the conclusion in the order under appeal on the basis of the unamended provisions of the Act are erroneous and unsustainable.
“39. A reading of the definition clauses under Section 3 of the Act would show that the concept of excise duty and countervailing duty has been referred to
LPA 330/2005 Page 4 of 7
in sub-section 6(b) with reference to entry 51 of List II in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. Under sub-section (6) of Section 3 alcoholic liquor is an exciseable article. Under sub-section (9) of Section 3 excise revenue has been defined. The definition is wide to enclude any payment, duty, fee, tax, confiscation or fine imposed or ordered under the provisions of the Act of any other law for the time being in force. There is no doubt that there is a difference in the definition clauses but then excise revenue is a wider terminology than countervailing duty. The term excise revenue has, however, not being defined to include profits as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners. If all the definitions, terms are read together, it is apparent that excise revenue is a revenue of a particular kind arising from dues, fees, tax, fine etc., and the word payment has to be read along with such terms. I am thus unable to accept the plea that excise revenue is in the nature of a profit even though the same is a variable. The component of excise revenue is variable only on account of the fact that though the other components of the retail price are fixed, excise revenue would be the balance between the fixed components and the retail price. The retail price has also been fixed and has been kept at a particular level in view of a conscious decision of the Government for the last about two decades. The wholesale price would vary and accordingly the excise revenue would increase or decrease”
“43. …….I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that a reading of the relevant provisions of the Warehouse Rules makes it
LPA 330/2005 Page 5 of 7
clear that once the consignment comes to the bonded warehouse, the Government must get its dues. Section 31 of the Act falls in Chapter V dealing with dues, fees and authorises duty of excisable articles. The fact that same has split into two dues being the special duty and excise revenue would not make any difference since basic principle is the same in respect of both and the principle of countervailing duty would apply in both the cases. The submission of bond only postpones the payment of both these levies and the bond is for a fixed amount and not for any particular levy. Excise revenue is really nothing but countervailing duty.
LPA 330/2005 Page 6 of 7
appellant/writ petitioner is liable to reimburse the „excise revenue‟ also in addition to „special duty‟ cannot be found fault with.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JANUARY 04, 2016 anb
LPA 330/2005 Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the wholesale licensee is liable to reimburse excise revenue on transit wastage of liquor.
Whether the amendment to the Punjab Excise Act, 1979 affects the liability to pay excise revenue on transit wastage.
Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in equating excise revenue to countervailing duty for the purpose of transit wastage.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s The Co-operative Co. Ltd.
D.T.T.D.C.
G. Rohini
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
