T RAMASESHAM RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to forbear from enforcing against of otherwise demanding compliance with from the petitioner of any of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) The petitioner is a grower and dealer in Virginia Tobacco. He challenges the Central Excise Rules framed by the Government as imposing severe restrictions on the growers and curer and as unwarranted having regard to the purpose of the legislation. Though the writ petitioner in this petition had challenged all the rules, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner confined his arguments only to Rules 15, 18(2), 21, 22, 23, 34 and 36 and contended that they offend Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, a reference to the relevant provisions of the Rules is necessary. It may be stated here that these rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Act. Chapter I of the rules relates to the definitions. Chapter II refers to the appointment and powers of officers. Chapter III deals with the levy and exemption from duty. Rule 7 in this Chapter indicates the person from whom the excise duty is recoverable, viz., producer, curer, manufacturer or person who stores excisable goods. Chanter IV deals with un-manufactured products. Rule 15, which is now challenged, by the petitioner heads this chapter and it runs thus: