(1.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the Notification No.1 of 1990, dated 1st February, 1990 by which sub-rule (4) of Rule 57g of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been amended. The petitioners also seek to challenge the Circular bearing No.25/92/cx-8, dated 15th december, 1992 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, as also a Trade Notice No.1 of 1993 dated 27th January, 1993 issued by the Additional Collector (Tech.), Central Excise, by which the procedure earlier prevailing to issue certified copy of the gate Pass, where the original is lost in transit, has been discontinued.
(2.) By the above Notfn. No.1/90-CE (NT), dated 1st February, 1990 the Central Excise (First amendment) Rules, 1990 came into force. By the said Amendment sub-rule (4) of Rule 57g of the Central Excise Rules had been substituted and the substituted sub-rule reads as under :-
(3.) According to the petitioners the Circular dated 15th December, 1992 (Exhibit 'b' to the petition) is unreasonable and bad-in-law inasmuch as it provides that no credit will be allowed based on Certified Copy or authenticated photocopy of the original Gate Pass on the ground that the original is lost. It was submitted that prior to the said Circular credit was given even on a certified Copy or an Authenticated Photocopy of the original Gate Pass-I wherever the original gate Pass was lost. It was further submitted that a transporter has to carry large number of goods as also documents in support of each of the consignment and it was for this reason that the earlier circulars allowed the said credit even on Certified Copy or an Authenticated photocopy of the gate Pass which, according to the petitioners, has been done away with unreasonably and without any authority of law. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the above Amendment as also the Circular dated 15th December, 1992 and the Trade Notice dated 27th January, 1993 were arbitrary, unreasonable and bad-in-law and they violated the fundamental rights to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It was also submitted that the impugned circular dated 15th December, 1992 as also the Trade Notice dated 27th January, 1993 (Exhibit 'b' and Exhibit 'c' to the Petition respectively) were contrary to Rule 224 (B) of Central Excise rules which provide for duplicate of documents to be supplied on payment of fees.