High Court of Karnataka Upholds Notification Levying Central Excise on Tobacco Products — Notification No.3/2019-Central Excise dated 06.07.2019 held valid and within powers under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held that the government has the power to modify or withdraw exemptions in public interest and that promissory estoppel does not apply to legislative functions.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 105
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment pertains to a batch of writ petitions filed by manufacturers and dealers of tobacco and tobacco products, challenging Notification No.3/2019-Central Excise dated 06.07.2019 issued by the Union of India under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The notification levied central excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products. The petitioners argued that the notification was ultra vires the Act, as it sought to levy duty on goods that were already exempted, and that it violated the principles of promissory estoppel as the government had earlier granted exemptions. The respondents, Union of India and the Commissioner of Central Tax, defended the notification, stating that it was issued in public interest to regulate tobacco consumption and that the government has the power to modify or withdraw exemptions under Section 5A. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 5A, which allows the Central Government to exempt goods from excise duty, either absolutely or subject to conditions, and also to modify or withdraw such exemptions. The court held that the notification was validly issued and that the government had the authority to levy excise duty on tobacco products. The court also rejected the argument of promissory estoppel, stating that it cannot be applied to legislative functions. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the notification.

Headnote

A) Central Excise - Levy of Excise Duty - Notification No.3/2019-Central Excise - Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - The petitioners challenged the notification levying excise duty on tobacco products, contending that it was issued without authority and violated principles of promissory estoppel. The court held that the notification was validly issued under Section 5A, which empowers the Central Government to levy excise duty on goods manufactured or produced in India. The court further held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against a legislative function, and the government has the power to modify or withdraw exemptions in public interest. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Notification No.3/2019-Central Excise dated 06.07.2019 issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 levying central excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products is valid and within the powers of the Central Government.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the validity of Notification No.3/2019-Central Excise dated 06.07.2019.

Law Points

  • Validity of notification under Section 5A of Central Excise Act
  • 1944
  • Levy of excise duty on tobacco products
  • Scope of exemption notification
  • Doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable to legislative functions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (KAR) (09) 1

W.P. No.145107 of 2020 (EXCISE) C/W W.P. No.101969 of 2020 (T-TAR), W.P. No.123492 of 2020 (T-TAR), W.P. No.146879 of 2020 (T-TAR), W.P. No.101375 of 2021 (T-TAR) & W.P. No.101916 of 2021 (T-RES)

2022-09-21

M.I. Arun

Sri. Shivadass, Senior Counsel for Sri. Gangadhar J. M., Advocate; Sri. M.B. Kanavi, CGSC for R1; Sri. Girish S. Hulmani, Advocate for R2; Sri. Prashant F. Goudar, Advocate

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the validity of Notification No.3/2019-Central Excise dated 06.07.2019 levying central excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the notification and a direction to the respondents to not levy excise duty on tobacco products.

Filing Reason

The petitioners, being manufacturers and dealers of tobacco products, were aggrieved by the notification which imposed excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products, allegedly without authority and in violation of promissory estoppel.

Issues

Whether Notification No.3/2019-Central Excise dated 06.07.2019 is ultra vires the Central Excise Act, 1944? Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to prevent the government from levying excise duty on tobacco products after earlier exemptions?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the notification was issued without authority and violated promissory estoppel as the government had earlier granted exemptions. Respondents argued that the notification was validly issued under Section 5A in public interest and that promissory estoppel does not apply to legislative functions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Central Government has the power under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to levy excise duty on goods manufactured or produced in India, and to modify or withdraw exemptions in public interest. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against a legislative function.

Judgment Excerpts

The notification was validly issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against a legislative function.

Procedural History

The writ petitions were filed directly before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the notification. The court heard all petitions together and delivered a common judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 5A
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Sale of TDR by Public Trust Without Charity Commissioner's Permission. Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Held to be Movable Property, Not Requiring Permission Under Section 36(1)(c) of Bombay Publi...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Directing De Novo Trial in Criminal Case Based on Procedural Irregularity in Charge Framing. The Court Held That Under Sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Mere Procedural Defect in...