KANNAIYAN Vs. ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE scope ot these writ petitions is a limited one. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4407 of 1965 was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his two brothers and father. This joint Hindu family had a number of power-looms in their possession, which they were using for the purpose of weaving. On 2nd May, 1963, they effected a partition, and the petitioner was allotted for his share four of these power-looms. Originally, the licence for these power-looms stood in the name of the father, and he was paying the excise duty levied on cotton fabrics produced by the power-looms. After the partition, the licence for the four power-looms, which were allotted to the petitioner's share, was transferred to his name by the authorities. On 26th June, 1964, the petitioner received a notice from the assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode, the first respondent herein, stating that, since he had acquired the aforesaid four looms from his father, who was the licensee of the power-loom factory, the petitioner was liable to pay duty on the cotton fabrics produced on the power-looms irrespective of the number of looms installed by him.

(2.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 4553 of 1965 is another brother of Kannaiyan, the petitioner in W. P. No. 4407 of 1965. He is also similarly situated, and he got at the partition four power-looms and just like the petitioner in W. P. No. 4407 of 1965, he too received a notice from the first respondent saying that he would be liable to pay excise duty on the cotton fabrics produced in his four looms.

(3.) SINCE the points in controversy in these two writ petitions are identical, I will deal with them together.