PREMIER METALS AND INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is obtained by the petitioner challenging the imposition of excise duty on the skelp purchased by the petitioner from Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., who is respondent No. 4 in this writ application. The allegation made in this writ petition is that the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and manufacturing box strappings and C.R.C.A. strips and the petitioner -company has to purchase raw material in the form of iron and steel product known as skelp from primary producers and manufacturers of iron and steel, namely, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur, amongst other producers and also from the open market. We are concerned with the purchase of skelp from Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. at the material time. The iron and steel products at the material times were included in Item No. 26AA of First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The question whether the iron and steel product supplied by respondent No. 4 to the petitioner -company is skelp or H.R. strips, was in dispute before the High Court at Delhi in Writ Petition No. 1678 of 1967 and it was held, inter alia, that the primary material is to be purchased from the producers on the recommendations of the Joint Plant Committee, which is a Government of India undertaking established in 1964. The Joint Plant Committee used to fix the rates prescribed for the purposes of supply of the materials to the petitioner -company. The price fixed by the Joint Plant Committee was the excise duty (sic) and that cornes to Rs. 1,335, of which Rs. 487.50 is the excise duty as on 4th March, 1973, as announced by the Joint Plant Committee, vide Announcement No. 101. The High Court of Delhi was pleased to dispose of the matter, whereupon the matter went to the Honourable Supreme Court and the judgment by the Supreme Court delivered and reported in Union of India v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. AIR 1975 SC 769 has already decided the matter fully.

(2.) MR . Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated and does not dispute that he is to pay in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, Rs. 487.50 as excise duty for cold rolled strips. Now the question is that the petitioner having paid Rs. 487.50 for the primary material to the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. as is evident from the receipts granted by the Tata Iron and Steel, how much more the petitioner is to pay as the duty.

(3.) MR . Gupta, on behalf of the respondent, however, contended that it will be difficult for them to get the excise duty realised by Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., but the petitioner may file a civil suit against Tata Iron and Steel Company to get back the excise duty already paid and pay the same to the Union of India. This is in my opinion, is not a fair argument, which should be accepted. It is for the Union of India and the Union of India alone to get the money from Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., which is quite evident, has accepted the money as excise duty and that was the price fixed by the Joint Plant Committee and without which the material could not have been sold to the petitioner.