PILKHANI DISTILLERY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been tiled by the same petitioners, involving a common controversy and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Notification dated 24.2.1984 (Annexure-1) amending sub-rule (11) of Rule 7 of the U.P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969 (for Short the Rules) whereby and whereundcr the limit of wastage during the course of bottling of the liquor has been reduced from 1% to 0.8%. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the consequential orders (Annexures-2 and 3) directing the petitioner to pay the amount of duty towards wastage of spirit which had occurred in the course of bottling and also to refund the amount paid thereof- in Writ Petition No. 629 of 1984, a sum of Rs. 6,297.50 for the month of March, 1984 (Annexure-2 to the petition), and in Writ Petition No. 943 of 1984, a sum of Rs. 8,470 for the month of August and Rs. 5,436 for the month of September (Annexure-2 to the petition), has been demanded towards excise duty from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner is a distillery and holds a licence in Form P.D. 2 issued under the U. P. Excise Act (for short the Act) for the manufacture of Indian made Foreign Liquor. The respondents framed U. P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules. 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) under Section 41 of the Act to provide bottling privilege of the liquor manufactured by a distiller, brewer and vinter. It came into effect from the date of its publication in the Gazette. Under the aforesaid Rules, a distiller, brewer and vinter can be granted licence in Form F. L. 3 to bottle the liquor manufactured by them subject to the condition prescribed in Rules 6 and 7, Sub-rule 11 (a) of Rule 7 permitted an allowance upto 1% of loss occurring at the point of bottling. By the impugned notification, the aforesaid permissible limit of wastage or loss during the course of bottling of spirit has been reduced from 1% to 0.8% which has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground inter alia that the same is arbitrary and uncalled for, hence liable to be quashed.