# MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD v. EXCISE & TAXATION COMMER. CHANDIGARH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 510
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-05-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 582 of 1971
- **Bench:** A. c. GUPTA, JAswANT SINGll
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohan-meakin-breweries-ltd-v-excise-taxation-commer-chandigarh-ors-7161
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Punjab Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1957, J?.ulcs 8 tuul 9 i111po•1itio11 of
duty or regulatory provision, whether ultra vires the Finallcial Co111mis.rioner's
powers countervailing duty, whether illiposs/blu oflly on liquor l'Xisting witl:i11
State territory.
The appellant company carried on the business ol' manufacture, storage and
t;ale of liquors.
Bei..ween June, 1967 and April 1969, it uansported 't'arious
C
quantities of liquor from its dis:illeries in Uttar Pradesh to its bonded warehouse
at Chandigarh. On arrival, the consignments were examined by the Ofliccr-
.:n·Charge of the warehouse, and a shortage was found, exceeding the wastage
a!Jowance permissible under rule 8 of the Punjab Bonded Warehouse Rules.
1957. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, exercising the powers of the
Financial Commissioner, issued a show cause notice and then ordered the appellant to pay duty on the wastage in ex~ess. The <:1PPellant's petit:ons to the Iligh
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, \Vere dismissed.
D
It was contended before this Court, firstly that Rules 8 nnd 9 of the 1957
Rules under which the duty was sought to be imposed, were ultra vires the ru11>
making power of the Financial C"Ornmissioner, and seccmdly, that these rules
were iiilvalid as they went beyond the scope of Ss. J 6, 23 and 31 and Entr~
51, List IL 7th Schedule of the Constitution, by imposing excise duty or counter·
vailing duty on articles \vhich neither existed in the State. nor were removed fron1
the warehouse.
E
Dismissing the appeals the Courl,
· ~
FJELD : ( 1) The. impugned rules do not in1pose any duties or prescribe the .
rates thereof or create any liability in respect thereof.
They are in essence and
• •
I
..
>
substance of a regulatory character meant to guard against perpetration of
"
fraud or deception on the revenue.
They provide for and regulate the storage
and subsequently the t"emoval of liquor from the bonded warehouse, on pay·
nient or otherwise of the duty which is chargeable under the Fiscal Rules of
1937, issued hyl the State Government. The powers. exercised by the Financial
F
Commissioner were clearly available to him under sec1ions 59 and 22 of the
G
H
Act and he has not overstepped the same.
[5130-H; 514A]
(2) Accordin~ to Section 31 of the Act read with Entry 51 of List II ot'
the Seventh Sched.ule to the Constitution, countervailing duty can b~ imposed
on fquor n1eant for Consumption which is :pJanufactured or produced elsewhere
in India. It is immaterial whether the liqiior of which permits were obtained,
was consumed within the union territory of Chandigarh or was in existeneei in
that territory or not.
Duty is sought to be charged on liquor which was actually
manufactured and left Uttar Pradesh but was found short beyond the permissible limit and no reasonable explanation was tendered by tbe appellant in res·
pect thereof.
[5170-GJ
Kalyani Stores v. The State of Oriss,1 & Ors. [1966] 1 S.C.R. 865, referred
to.

## Text

B
510
MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD.
v.
EXCISE & TAXATION COMMER. CHANDIGARH & ORS.
May 4, 1976
(A. c. GUPTA AND JAswANT SINGll, JJ.]
Punjab Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1957, J?.ulcs 8 tuul 9 i111po•1itio11 of
duty or regulatory provision, whether ultra vires the Finallcial Co111mis.rioner's
powers countervailing duty, whether illiposs/blu oflly on liquor l'Xisting witl:i11
State territory.
The appellant company carried on the business ol' manufacture, storage and
t;ale of liquors.
Bei..ween June, 1967 and April 1969, it uansported 't'arious
C
quantities of liquor from its dis:illeries in Uttar Pradesh to its bonded warehouse
at Chandigarh. On arrival, the consignments were examined by the Ofliccr-
.:n·Charge of the warehouse, and a shortage was found, exceeding the wastage
a!Jowance permissible under rule 8 of the Punjab Bonded Warehouse Rules.
1957. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, exercising the powers of the
Financial Commissioner, issued a show cause notice and then ordered the appellant to pay duty on the wastage in ex~ess. The <:1PPellant's petit:ons to the Iligh
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, \Vere dismissed.
D
It was contended before this Court, firstly that Rules 8 nnd 9 of the 1957
Rules under which the duty was sought to be imposed, were ultra vires the ru11>
making power of the Financial C"Ornmissioner, and seccmdly, that these rules
were iiilvalid as they went beyond the scope of Ss. J 6, 23 and 31 and Entr~
51, List IL 7th Schedule of the Constitution, by imposing excise duty or counter·
vailing duty on articles \vhich neither existed in the State. nor were removed fron1
the warehouse.
E
Dismissing the appeals the Courl,
· ~
FJELD : ( 1) The. impugned rules do not in1pose any duties or prescribe the .
rates thereof or create any liability in respect thereof.
They are in essence and
• •
I
..
>
substance of a regulatory character meant to guard against perpetration of
"
fraud or deception on the revenue.
They provide for and regulate the storage
and subsequently the t"emoval of liquor from the bonded warehouse, on pay·
nient or otherwise of the duty which is chargeable under the Fiscal Rules of
1937, issued hyl the State Government. The powers. exercised by the Financial
F
Commissioner were clearly available to him under sec1ions 59 and 22 of the
G
H
Act and he has not overstepped the same.
[5130-H; 514A]
(2) Accordin~ to Section 31 of the Act read with Entry 51 of List II ot'
the Seventh Sched.ule to the Constitution, countervailing duty can b~ imposed
on fquor n1eant for Consumption which is :pJanufactured or produced elsewhere
in India. It is immaterial whether the liqiior of which permits were obtained,
was consumed within the union territory of Chandigarh or was in existeneei in
that territory or not.
Duty is sought to be charged on liquor which was actually
manufactured and left Uttar Pradesh but was found short beyond the permissible limit and no reasonable explanation was tendered by tbe appellant in res·
pect thereof.
[5170-GJ
Kalyani Stores v. The State of Oriss,1 & Ors. [1966] 1 S.C.R. 865, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 582 of 1971.
•,,
•
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
-., ,._
the 29th July 1970 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Wr:it
No. 2376170 and
}
. .
./ '
• •
,
;
II
MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. v. E. T. c. (laswant Singh,!.)
5 1 l
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1418 of 1970.
From the Judgment Order dated 4th December
1969 of
the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.No. 342 of 1969.
Tirath Singh Munjral, G. K. Arora, B. C. Das Gupta & Co. for the
Appellant.
N. S. Das Behl and 0. P. Sharma for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.-There two Civil Appeals Nos. 1418 of 1970
and 582 of 1971, the first by certificate of fitness granted under Article
133(J)(a) of the Constitution by the Punjab and Haryana
High
Court and the second by special leave granted by this Court which
are directed against the Judgments and orders of the said High Court
dated December 4, 1969, and July 29, 1970, rendered in Civil Writ
Petitions No. 342 of 1969 and No. 2376 of 1970 respectively shall
be disposed of by this Judgment as they arise out of identical proceedings and raise common questions of law.
The appellant, a public limited company incorporated under
the
Indian Companies Act, which carried on the business inter alia
of
manufacture, storage and sale of varous kinds of Indian made foreign
liquors and had its plants for manufacture and production of
beer
and distillation and production of the said liquors at Solan (in Himachal
Pradesh), at Mohan Nagar (in Uttar Pradesh), at Lucknow (in Uttar
Pradesh) and at Kasauli (in Himachal Pradesh) held in the years 1967,
1968 and 1969 a licence in From B.W.H. 2 under section 22 of the
Punjab Excise Act (I of 1914) (hereinaft€r referred to as 'the Act')
read with Rule 2 of the Puniab Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1957 Rules') which were framed by the Financial Commissioner under section 59 read with section 22 of the Act,
permitting it to run on conditions specified therein a Bonded Warehouse
at Chandigarh for storage of bottled and bulk liquor 'and issue thereof
under bond or on payment of dnty to the licensees of Punjab, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh etc. One of these conditions required the appellant
to observe the provisions of the Act as also the Rnles framed and
instructions issued thereunder from time to time.
Rules 7 to 10 of 1957 Rules governing the appellant's licence ran
thus :
"7. No liquor shall be received in the bonded warehouse
unless accompanied by a pass from the Officer-in-charge of
the distillery or bonded warehouse from which it has been
imported or transported.
Immediately on arrival of a consignment at the bonded
warehouse the officer-in-charge shall be informed and the
consignment shall not be opened until the same has been
examined and verified with the pass by the Officer-in-<;harge
who shall also note the resu]!s in the register maintained
for the purpose and also on the pass covering the consignA
B
c
D
I~
F
G
H
5 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] SUPPL'o~IENIAltY
A
ment.
One copy of the pass with entries oE receipt shall
be immediately returned to the Officer, who issued the pass
and the other copy with entries thereon, shall be kept in
the Warehouse.
B
8. A wastage allowance not exceeding 1 per cent shall
be made for the actual loss in transit by leakage or breakage
of vessels or bottles containing liquor.
The allowance shall
be determined by deducting from the quantity despatched
the quantity received at the destination, both quantities being
stated in terms of proof litres of spirit contents or in case of
beer in bulk litres.
9. If the report of the Ofliccr-in-chmge show, that the
C
wastage exceeds the prescribed limit, the licensee shall be
liable to pay duty at the prescribed rate as if the wastage in
excess of the prescribed limit had actually l>crn removed
from the Warehouse.
D
E
F
G
H
Provided that each case of excessive wastage shall be reported to the Financial Commissioner for orders, who may in
his discretion, on good cause being shown remit it whole or a
part of the duty leviable on such wastage.
10. Liquor shall be imported/transported under bond
in accordance with the Punjab Liquor Permit and
Pass
Rules at the sole risk and responsibility of the licensee. The
bond in form L. 37 shall be discharged, after liquor has been
duly checked and proved by the Officer-in-charge and deposited in the Ware-house."
Between June, 1967 and April, 1969, the appellant transported,
for the purpose of bottling, vartous quantities of Indian made foreign
liquors from its ·aforesaid distilleries in Uttar Pradesh and Himachal
Pradesh to its Bonded Warehouse at Chandigarh.
This was
done
on the strength of the permits issued by the Excise and Taxation
Officer, Chandigarh. Pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1957 Rules, the
Officer-in-charge of the Warehouse examined the consignments
on
their arrival at their destination with a view to checking and vcrifyin~
the quantities thereof with those shown in the permits <•nd discovered
!hat they suffered from shortage which exceeded the wastage allowance
of I per cent permissible under Rule 8 of the said Rules.
As a sequel to the detection of the aforesaid shortages, the Excise
and Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration, who is the first respondent herein, issued notices calling upon the appellant to show Cause why duty
at the prescribed rate of Rs. 20/- per proof litre be not levied against
it on the wastage in excsss of the prescribed limit "as if the same had
been removed from its Bonded Warehouse at Chandigarh." In the
written representation submitted on behalf of the appellant in reply to
the notices, it was pleaded that the liquor evaporated during transit; that
'
' >
.
-
•
•
•
'
r •
J
•
MOHAN MEAKIN LTD- v. E. T. c. (Jaswant Singh, J.) 513
the Bonded Warehouse was in its initial stage and the method of mea-
~llRlllCllt of spirit was crude; thaU a~ the time of measurement, the tempcnture of spirit was not taken and that apart from evaporation, wastage
occured by leakage of drums in transit.
By his
detailed
order&
dated January 15, 1969 and February 10, 1970, the said respondent
repelled all the pleas raised on behalf of the appellant and made the
11oticos absolute holding that there was no material on the record
to show that anything peculiar had taken place in
respect of the
cnuignments in question which entitled the appellant to any remission
in the duty leviable on the wastage.
The appellant thereupon prefencd to the High Court writ petitions Nos. 342 of 1969 and 2376
of 1970 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging
tho aforesaid orders on various grounds.
While the first writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by an elaborate Judgment and
ocder dated December 4, 1969, the second one was dismissed in
lilwine vide order dated July 29, 1970. While the High Court granted, 111 already indicated, a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court
apinlt it& Judgment and order dated December 4, 1969, it refused to
to so in respect of its order dated July 29, 1970.
A
B
c
TllOugh several contentions were raised by the appellant in the
D
•fOl'CQid two writ petitions filed by it in the High Court, counsel appearing on its behalf has assailed before us the correctness of the impugned orders passed by the first respondent on two grounds.
He
hll.i in the first instance contended that Rules 8 and 9 of the 1957
Ruk:I uder which the duty is sought to be imposed are ultra vireo
the rule making power of the Financial Commissioner.
Elaborating
his mbmission, counsel has urged that since the State alone has, by
E
virtne of .Eeetion 31 of the Act, the power to impose duties mentioned
•
thecein, as also the exclusive power under section 58(1) of the Act
to mate rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act
including those of section 31 or any other law for the time being in
force relating to excise revenue and section 13 (a) of the Act prohibits
the State Government to delegate the powers conferred on it by sectiollll 14, 21, 31, 56 and 58 of the Act, Rules 8 and 9 of the 1957
F
Rulea are manifestly beyond the competence of the Financial Commisliioeer. This contention cannot, in our opinion be accepted as it proceeds on a misconception of the correct legal position.
It is,
no
doubt, true that it is the State Government alone which is empowered
to imp<JIC excise duty or countervailing duty on any excisable article
and to pl'escribe rates thereof as also to make rules for carrying out
inter alia the purposes of section 31 of the Act, but it seems to be
G
overlooked that the impugned rules do not impose any one of the
afocesaid duties or prescribe the rates thereof or create any liability
in rClpCCt thereof. They are in essence and substance of a regulatory
character meant to guard against perpetration of fraud or deception
on !he Revenue.
They provide for and regulate the storage of liquor
in tho Bonded Warehouse without payment at the initial stage of the
duty payable under the Act and subsequently the removal of the liquor
H
from the W!lrehouse on payment or otherwise of the duty which, as
correctly potnte_d out by the Ingh Court, is chargeable under the Fiscal
Rufe. d. 1937 issued by the State Government. The powers exercised
<5-833 !ICM6
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
A
by the Financial Commissioner were clearly available to him under sections 59 and 22 of the Act and he has not, in our opinion, overstepped
the same. The first contention raised on behalf of appellant is, therefore,
overruled.
B
c
D
·E
It is next contended by counsel for the appellant that Rules 8 and
9 of the 1957 Rules are also invalid as they go beyond the scope of
sections 16, 23 and 31 and Entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution.
Dwelling on this contention, counsel has submitLed that as the taxing power of even the State Legislature is restuded to the imposition of excise duty or countervailing duty on an excisable article which, according to section 3 t 6) of the Act, means inter
alia an alcoholic liquor for human consumption implying thereby an
alcoholic liquor in. existence, the incorporation in Rule 9 of the 1957
Rules of the fiction -making the licensee liable to pay duty at the
prescribed rate on wastage in excess of permissible hmit as if the said
wastage had actually been removed from the Warehouse has the effect
of imposing duty on an article which neither existed in the State nor
was removed from the Bonded Warehouse thus violating the S(:ope
and extent of the taxing power.
For a proper appreciation of the true legal position, it is necessary
to advert to sections 3(6-b), 31, 32, 16 and 23 of the Act and Entry
51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the
connotation of the term 'countervailing duty.'
"Section 3 ( 6-b). 'excise duty' and 'countervaling ·duty'
mean any such excise duty or countervailing duty as
the
case may be, as is mentioned in Entry 51 of List II in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
•
Section 31.
Duty on excisable articles.-An excise duty,
~
F
G
H
or a countervailing duty, as the case may be at such rate or
rates as the State Government shall direct, may be imposed,
either generally or for any special local area, on any excis·
able article-
(a) imported, exported or transported in accordance with
the provisions of section 16, or
(b) manufactured or cultivated under any licence granted
under section 20, or
( c) manufactured in any distillery established or any distillery or brewery licensed under section 21;
"Provided as follows :-
(i) Duty shall not be so imposed on any article which has
been imported into India and was liable on importation
to duty under the India Tarrif Act, 1894, or the Sea
Customs Act, 1878.
(ii) xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Explanation.-Duty may be imposed under this section at different rates according to the places to which
..
.•
•
)
;. .
.. ,
•
l
'
~
f • •
•
..., r
MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. v. E. 'f. C, (Jaswant Singh, J.)
515
any excisable article is to be rell!oved for consumption,
or according to the varying strength and quality of such
article."
"Section 32.
Manner in which duty may be levied.-
subject to such rules regulating the time, place
and
manner as the Financial Commissioner may prescribe,
such duty shall be levied rateably, on the quantity of
excisable article imported, exported, transported, collected or manufactured in, or issued from, a
distillery,
brewery or warehouse;
Provided that duty may be levied-
(a) on intoxicating drugs by an acreage rate levied on
the cultivation of the hemp plant, or by a
rate
charged on the quantity collected;
(b) on spirit or beer manufactured in any distillery
established, or any distillery or brewery licensed,
under this Act in accordance with such scale of
equivalents calculated on the quantity of materials
used, or by the degree of attenuation of the wash
or wort, as the case may be, as the State Government may prescribe;
( c) on tari, by a tax on each tree from which the tari
is drawn :
Provided further that, where payment is made upon issue
of an excisable article for sale from a warehouse established
or licensed under section 22 (a), it shall be made-
(a) if the state Government by notification so directs,
at the rate of duty which was in force at the date
of import of that article. or
(b) in the absence of such direction by the State Government, at the rate of duty which is in force on that
article on the date when it is issued from a warehouse.*
"Section 16.
Import, export and transport of intoxicantsNo intoxicant shall be imported, exported or transported
except-
(a) after payment of any duty to which it may be liable
under this Act, or execution of a bond for such
payment, and
(b) in compliance with such conditions _as the State
Government may inpose."
"Section. 23.
Removal of intoxicant from
distillery- no
intoxicant shall be removed from any distillery, brewery,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
I·
G
H
51 (-l
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] SUPPLECMENTARY
warehouse or other place of storage established or licensed under this Act, unless the duty, if, any, payable under
Chapter V has been paid or a bond has been executed
for the payment thereof."
·
"Entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution- Duties on excise on the following goods manufactured
or produced in the State and countervailing duties at the
same or lower rates on similar goods manufactured or produced elsewhere in India :-
(a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption
(b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and
narcotics;
but not including medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph (b) of this Entry."
Tho expression 'countervailing duty' is not defined in the Act but
its meaning has been made clear in the Judgment of this Court in
Kalyani Stores v. The State of Orissa and Ors.(') where it was observed
"This brings us to the consideration of the meaning of
the expression "countervailing duties" used in Entry
51.
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
The
"expression "countervailing duties" has not been defined in
the Constitution or the Bihar & Orissa Act 2 of 1915.
We
have, therefore, to depend upon its etymological sense and
the context in which it has been used in Entry 51.
In its
etymological sense, it means to counterbalance; to avail
against with equal force or. virtue; to compensate for something or serve as an equivalent of or substitute for :
sec
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edn. 421.
Thls would suggest that a countervailing duty is imposed for the purpose
of counterbalancing or to avail against something with equal
force or to compensate for something as an equivalent. Entry
51 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
gives power to the State Legislature to impose duties of
excise on alcoholic liquors for human consumption where
the goods are manufactured or produced in the State.
It
also gives power to levy countervailing duties at the same or
lower rates on similar goods manufactured
or
produced
elswherc in India.
The fact that countervailing duties may
be imposed at the same or lower rates suggests that they are
meant for counterbalance the duties of e)(cise imposed
on
goods manufactured in the State.
They may be imposed
at the same rate as excise duties or at a lower rate, presumably to equalise the burden after taking into account the cost
of transpo1t fro111 the pfacc of m111ufacturc to the taxin~'
rt) fl966J 1 s.c.R. 865.
..
' '
'
" •
•
•
• •
MOltAN MEAKIN LTD. v. E.T. c. (Jaswant Singh, J.)
517
State.
It seems, therefore, that .countervailing duties are
ment to equalise the burden on alcoholic liquors manufactured or produced in the State.
If no alcoholic liquors
similar to those imported into the State are produced or manufactured, the right to impos(,' counterbalancing duti~s of
excise fovied on the goods manufactured in the State will not
arise.
It may, therefore, be accepted that countervailing
duties can only be levied if similar goods are actually produced or manufactured in the State on which excise duties
are being levied."
A
B
• •
It will be seen that section 31 of the Act read with Entry 51 of
•
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution permits imJ>05ition
•
of (i) excise duty by the State Government on any exisable article
imported into or exported from or transported in accordance with the
C
provisions of section 16 of the Act which means after payment of any
duty to which it may be liable under the Act or after execution of a
bond for such payment and (ii) countervailing duty inter alia on
alcoholic liquors for human consumption manufactured or produced
elsewhere in India.
The contention advanced on behalf of appellant which seems
to
proceed on the assumption that the Chandigarh Administration can
impose duty only if liquor is consumed in its territory is erroQeous as,
according to section 31 of the Act read with the aforesaid Entry 51
of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, countervailing
duty can be imposed on liquor meant for consumption which is manu-
• factured or produced elsewhere in India.
It is immaterial whether
the liquor for which permits were obtained was consumed within the
Union Territory of Chandigarh or was in existence in that territory
or not.
What is material is whether permits were obtained for import from Uttar Pradesh of alcoholic Liquor meant for human consumption and the quantity shown in the permits left Uttar Pradesh.
In
the present case, the liquor for which permits were obtained by the
appellant was admittedly in existence and was
meant for
hnman
consumption and did leave the appellant's distilleries in Uttar Pradesh
for being transported to his Warehouse in Chandigarh at his own risk
and responsibility. n is also not denied on behalf of the appellant that
a portion of the liquor which exceeded the permissible limit of wastage
did not reach the appellant's Warehouse and was not found therein
D
E
F
,>
and the shortage remained unaccounted for. It is thus e¥ident that duty
.. is not songht to be charged on an excisable article which wa~ not in
e.tistence, as contended on behalf of the appellant but is sought to be
charged on liqnor which was actnally manufactured and left Uttar
Pradesh but was found short beyond the permissible limit and no reasonabfo e~planation was tendered by the appellant in respect thereof.
There is accordingly no merit or substance in the second contention
advanced on behalf of the appellant as well.
•
G
The decision of this Court in Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of
H
Madhya Pradesh(') which is strongly relied upon on behalf of the
(1) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 844.
B
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
appellant is not applicable to the present case. In that case, the condition introduced by the State Government in the purported exercise
of its power under clause (d) and (h) of section 62(2) of the Madhya
Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, in the appellants' licences prescribmg the
minimum quantity of liquor to be purchased by them from the Government and enjoining them to make compulsory payment of excise
duty on the quantity of liquor which they failed to take delivery of wa>
held to be invalid as it went beyond· the provisions of sections 25, 26,
27, 62(1) and clauses (d) and (h) of section 62(2) of the aforesaid
Act. In the present case, however, the liquor was lifted by the appellant from its distilleries in Uttar Pradesh and a portion thereof remained unaccounted for, as already stated, on arrival of the consignments at their destination.
C
For the foregoing reasons, the respondents were right in demanding
the duty on the shortages.
In the result, the appeals fail and arc dismissed with costs, limited
to one set.
M.R.
Appeals dismissed
' .
• •
•
. >
•