S PANNADEVI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved in all these writ petitions relates to the validity of the Notification No. 73/81-C.E., dated 25-3-1981, being a notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 amending an earlier Notification 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 and therefore, I am passing a common order in the above writ petitions.

(2.) I will set out the facts in writ petition No. 1940 of 1981: The petitioner is a manufacturer of patent or proprietary medicines. The petitioner does not own a factory of her own for manufacture. She has obtained a licence under the Drugs Act known as "loan licence" enabling her to use the factory premises of another factory owner. Actually, the petitioner is using the factory of M/s. Medhopharm at Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar, Madras-6. It is stated that there are other loan licensees attached to the said factory. The produce manufactured by the petitioner falls under Tariff Item 14-E of Schedule I to the Central Excise Act which attractsad valoremduty, the prescribed rate of duty being 12 /2%ad valoremtogether with a special excise duty of 5%.

(3.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of INdia in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 80/80-Central Excises, dated the 19th June, 1980, namely :- IN the said notification - (a) in Paragraph 1, for the provisions, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely :- 'Provided that the aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods from any factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers - (i) at nil rate of duty in terms of clause (a) of this paragraph, or (ii) at reduced rate of duty in terms of clause (b) of this paragraph, shall not in either case exceed rupees seven and a half lakhs in any financial year.'