SAMPATRAM KANHAIYA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law arising for decision in this case is whether the following notification of the Government of India, No. 2-Salt/47, dated the 28th February, 1947, stating that a refund of duty paid on stocks of salt held on the 1st April, 1947, or in transit on that date will also be admissible subject to the conditions set out in the notification, comes within the ambit of Rule 8 framed by the Central Government in exercise of its rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act (Act I of 1944):

(2.) On the same day another notification had been issued by the Central Government which reads as follows:

(3.) In this case the lower appellate Court has held that the notification In question does not fall under the statutory Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and so the plaintiff-appellants are not entitled to get a refund of the amount of duty paid, namely, a sum of Rs. 2127/1/- on the unsold quantity of salt on the 1st of April, 1947. In taking this view the lower appellate Court has followed the decision of the Punjab High Court in Union of India v. F. Gian Chand Kasturi Lal, AIR 1954 Punj 159.