Shri Ram Scientific And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1268 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. Against the order dated 31.10.1981 passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Delhi under the provisions contained in the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 the present writ petition is filed. From the narration of facts it transpires that the writ petitioners, Shri Ram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation and Shri Ram Institute for Research, both located in Delhi were granted exemption for carrying out research work and scientific investigation in relation to manufacture, commerce, industry and also for the purpose of a test house as an information and advice bureau, etc. The institute was a recognised research and development laboratory of the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India. Considering this aspect, a concession was granted for purchase of rectified spirit since April, 1972 by Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Delhi. However, vide letter dated 21.5.1979 (Annexure IX) the petitioner was informed that the facility of purchase of rectified spirit at a concession granted earlier stands withdrawn "with immediate effect". Thus in view of this order made by Deputy Commissioner the facility granted earlier was withdrawn with effect from 21.5.1979 and the order does not indicate that it was to be given retrospective effect. However, there is an order dated 6.5.1981 raising a demand from April, 1972 to 21.5.1979 in respect of about 5000 litres of rectified spirit and petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 95,200/- as arrears of excise duty. It is required to be noted that entire period of the demand is prior to the withdrawal notice. In the appeal which was preferred, the Appellate Officer has not examined the aspect as to whether a demand in respect of the period prior to the date of the withdrawal order could be sustained.

2. It was also contended by the petitioner that no opportunity was given of hearing before the withdrawal order was passed on 21.5.1979. We would have remanded the matter however, in the instant case, we find that the letter dated 21.5.1979 itself withdraws the concession "with immediate effect", that is, prospectively. The withdrawal was not retrospective. Yet, the writ petitioner is called upon to pay the amount from April, 1972 till 21.5.1979. This cannot be sustained and therefore this petition is required to be allowed with no order as to costs. Consequently the demand notice and the appellate order are quashed and set aside.