[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22142 of 2025
M/s. Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. .... Petitioner
Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Jnanesh Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2026
01. 1. Aggrieved by Order dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the
Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in Excise Appeal
Case No.03 of 2023 (Annexure-11), affirming the letter dated 17th
July, 2013 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack
(Annexure-4), notice dated 11th December, 2013 (Annexure-3)
issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda and order dated 15th
March, 2014 (Annexure-8) issued by the Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Khurda, the petitioner having a Bottling Unit at
Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition under Articles
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following
prayer(s):-
"In the circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that your
lordships would graciously be pleased to issue RULE
NISI calling the Opposite Parties to show cause as and if
they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then
issue appropriate order/orders setting aside the order
dated 04.04.2024 passed in Excise Appeal No.3/2023 by
the Board of Revenue at Annexure-11, quashing the
notice dated 11.12.2013 at Annexure-3 issued by the
Superintendent of Excise, Khurda, and order dated
15.03.2014 at Annexure-8 issued by the Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, Khurda, At/Po/Dist-Khurda.
AND
Further direct the Opp. Parties not to impose transport
fee along with import fee on the consignment imported by
the Petitioner."
2. Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, learned Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Jnanesh Mohanty, learned Advocate submitted that the
Assistant Audit Officer, Excise Department has raised objection
vide Half Margin Memo dated 06.12.2013 to the effect that:
"The Excise commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack has also
directed to the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda to
collect the transport fee along with the import fee vide
his letter number 3436-Ex, dt.17.7.2013. Why the above
transport fee of Rs.2,02,280,57/- has not been realized
from the importer as per the attached list may be
informed to the audit."
2.1. It is submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay
transport fee for importing RS/ENA from outside the State to its
Unit for preparation/manufacturing of IMFL as it discharged levy
of import fee on such RS/ENA being imported from outside the
State.
2.2. It is vehemently contended that the demand raised in
respect of the transport fee for importing such goods would
tantamount to double levy on the same subject-matter/transaction.
3. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State supported the
affirmation of demand in Appeal by the Member, Board of
Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack.
4. Heard Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State.
5. Similar issue cropped up before this Court with respect to
the present petitioner for certain other period. This Court in WP(C)
No.13408 of 2025 vide order dated 19th March, 2026 held as
follows:-
"5. During the periods 2011-12 and 2012-13, the
Bihar and Odisha Excise Act, 1915 was in vogue. In the said
Act, the word 'Transport' was defined in Section 2(21) to
mean "to remove from one place to another within the
State". On perusal of the audit objection it transpired that
the entire demand has been rested on account of non-
payment of transport fee for importing RS/ENA from outside
the State for preparation of IMFL. From the above definition,
it is clear that transport fee is amenable to be levied on the
consignment of goods moving from one place to another
within the State.
5.1. Since the goods in question have been imported by
the petitioner from outside the State, the audit objection so
raised, pursuant to which demand has been raised and
confirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha,
Cuttack, in the appeal has no legs to stand.
6. This Court having taken note of clarification
issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack in Letter
No.LVIII-143/08-466/Ex. Dated 20th January, 2009
(Annexure-6), in M/s. Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd.,
Rayagada vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.21832
of 2013, disposed of on 1st August, 2022 observed as
follows:-
'3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn
attention to the Court to letter dated 20th January, 2009
issued by the Excise Commissioner as instructions to the
Accountant General (CW & RA), Orissa, Bhubaneswar
where, inter alia, it is stated as under:
'In this connection it is to mention here that in the Excise
policy it is stipulated that the levy of import fee to be
collected only for import of RS/ENA from import of RS/ENA
from the outside the State of Orissa to the bottling units in the
State. And also as per definition import fee is applicable only
for import of consignment into the State from outside the
State and transport fee is applicable in case of transport of
consignment from one place to another within the State.
Hence, the demand raised by the Audit towards "Non-levy of
Transport fee on ENA-36.57 lakh may not be charged
simultaneously for import of ENA from outside the State.'
4. In view of the clarification issued to the
Accountant General by the Excise Commissioner himself, it
is plain that no transport fee is applicable where the
consignment comes from outside the State. It is applicable
only where the consignment goes from one place to another
within the State.'
6. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that RS/ENA being imported
by the petitioner from outside the State to its Bottling Unit for the
purpose of preparation of IMFL thereat, the demand raised in
respect of the transport fee is untenable and unwarranted. In view of
the above decision of this Court and the clarification of the Excise
Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack, the demand raised by the
Superintendent of Excise, Khordha at Bhubaneswar based on Audit
Objection of Audit Officer, Excise Department is liable to be
quashed and this Court does so.
7. In the result, the impugned order dated 4th April, 2024
passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in
Excise Appeal Case No.03 of 2023 confirming the letter dated 17th
July, 2013 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack
(Annexure-4), notice dated 11th December, 2013 (Annexure-3)
issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda and order dated 15 th
March, 2014 (Annexure-8) issued by the Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Khurda stands quashed and set aside.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also be disposed
of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2026 14:38:33
