Law: Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)

Section: 3(1)(4)

  Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 3(1)(4)---Excise duty---Levy of---Central Board of Revenue could either levy excise duty on actual production of excisable goods under S. 3(1) o the Act, or could impose a duty known as duty on production capacity on those goods under that section---Duty on production capacity under S. 3(4) could be levied "in lieu of and not "in addition to" duty under said provision which contemplated payment of duty on actual production---Expression "in lieu of was understood to have been used as meaning "instead of or "in substitution of. Bridge Company v. Dakota County 67 L.Ed. 340; Kunhathat Thathunni Moopil Nair etc. v. State of Kerala and another AIR 1961 SC 552; New Manek Chowk Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. etc. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmadabad and others AIR 1967 SC 1801; S.K. Dutta, Income tax Officer, Salary-cum-S. I.B. Circle, Assam and others v. Lawrence Singh Ingty AIR 1968 SC 658 and M/s. Dewan Textile Mills Limited, Karachi v. Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 others 1984 CLC 1740 ref. Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Waters) Rules, 1990-.. ----R. 7, proviso---Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), S. 3(4)---Excise duty---Levy of---Petitioner who was running a plant for production of aerated water under a franchised granted to it by foreign manufacturers, like all other manufacturing units having franchise from foreign companies, was liable to pay excise duty at same rates worked out on basis of production capacity, but petitioner had been asked to pay higher amount of duty merely on basis that in last year when excise duty was being levied on actual production and not on production capacity, petitioner had paid higher amount of duty---Such higher amount was asked to be paid under proviso to R. 7 of- Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Waters) Rules, 1990, which required that if a manufacturer had paid a higher amount of excise duty and sales tax in previous financial year, it would have to pay that higher amount and tax in future also notwithstanding that duty worked out on basis of its production capacity was less---Once a…