Holding

The excise duty on the designated quantum of rectified spirit is a valid component of the consideration for the privilege of vending arrack and is payable irrespective of actual import, and the rate increase is lawful.

Summary

The appellants, contractors licensed to vend arrack, challenged the Kerala government's demand for excise duty on a designated quantum of rectified spirit, arguing that the duty was unconstitutional, arbitrary and payable only on spirit actually imported. The State had amended Rule 8 of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 in 1993 to require contractors to remit excise duty on the designated quantum each month, and also raised the duty rate from Rs.5 to Rs.10 per bulk litre. The Supreme Court held that the duty is part of the consideration for the privilege of vending arrack and for importing rectified spirit, and therefore payable even if the spirit is not lifted, making it a legitimate component of the "kist" amount. The Court further found that the rate increase was not arbitrary and fell within the State's legislative competence under Entry 51 of List II. Relying on earlier decisions that such payments constitute a price for a privilege rather than a tax, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order.

Issues considered

The validity of levying excise duty on the designated quantum of rectified spirit irrespective of actual import or lift.
Whether the duty on unlifted quota forms part of the "kist" consideration and is constitutionally permissible.
Whether the increase in the excise duty rate from Rs.5 to Rs.10 per bulk litre is arbitrary or illegal.
Whether the levy exceeds the State's legislative competence under Entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. List II, Entry 51
Kerala Abkari Acts. 17, s. 18, s. 18A

Subjects

excise dutyrectified spiritAbkari Actkistprivilege of vending arrackauctioncountervailing dutylegislative competencerate increasecontractual consideration

Judgment

SOLOMON ANfONY AND ORS. A
)... v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 22, 2001

[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND B
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]

Excise l.Aws :

Kera/a Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974:
c
Rule 8( 1) (as amended in 1993)-Rectified spirit-Import of-
Countervailing duty-Levy of-Pennits granted to contractors to import or
purchase designated quantum of duty-paid rectified spirit-Such rectified spirit
could be obtained either from the distilleries within the State or from those
outside the State-Godowns were allowed to be opened to store rectified spirit D
or manufactured arrack on payment of prescribed annual rent-Demand of
excise duty raised on rectified spirit-Rate of excise duty also increased-
Validity of-Held: Excise duty on the designated quantum of rectified spirit is
payable as a consideration for parting with the privilege of vending arrack-
Duty payable on unlifted quota of rectified spirit is part of the amount payable
E
as 'kist'-Hence, levy of excise duty justified-KeralaAbkari Shops (Disposal
in Auction) Amendment Rules, I 993, R.8-Kerala Abkari Act, Ss. 17 and I 8.

The appellants-contractors were granted permits for import or
purchase of designated quantum of duty-paid rectified spirit under Rule
8(1) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Amendment Rules, F
1993. The contractors/licensees could obtain the duty-paid rectified spirit
either from the distilleries in the State or from those in other States. The
contractors were allowed to open godowns to store duty-paid rectified
spirit and for storage of manufactured arrack on payment of prescribed
annual rent.
G
The appellant-contractors filed writ petitions before the High Court
challenging the demand, and the increase in the rate, of excise duty on the
designated quantity of rectified spirit. The appellants contended that the
levy of excise duty on rectified spirit not actually imported was violative of
Sections 17 and 18 of the Kerala Abkari Act; that the increase in the rate H
53
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.

A of excise duty was arbitrary; that no rectified spirit was produced in the
State and, therefore, levy of countervailing duty was impermissible in law. A
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Hence this appeal.
~

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

B HELD : 1. Permit is granted to the contractors to import or pur·
chase a designated quantum of duty-paid rectified spirit and excise duty on
the designated quantum of rectiiied spirit has to be paid each month which
will be utilised for the purpose of manufacture of arrack and the 'kist'

c
amount payable would include the excise duty on the designated quantum
of rectified spirit. It means that the consideration for parting with the
.
privilege of vending arrack would include the consideration equivalent to
excise duty on the rectified spirit. Therefore, if the contractors with their
eyes wide open have accepted the terms of payment of consideration of the
'kist' inclusive of an amount equivalent to excise duty on rectified spirit, -+
there is no substance in the appellants' argument that the excise duty
D payable even by way of 'kist' is in the nature of a tax or levy and not
leviable under law by the State. The duty payable on unlifted quota of
rectified spirit is also part of the amount payable as 'kist' on the desig·
nated quantity. [61-A-C; DJ

E 2. The contractors are required to pay the consideration payable to ~
the State for sale of the liquor, namely, arrack and by importing desig·
nated quantity of rectified spirit in respect of which the consideration
payable is equivalent to excise duty. Thus the High Court is justified in
holding that the contractors are bound to pay the amount which is a
measured excise duty payable on the designated quantum of rectified spirit
F in terms of Rule 8 of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules,
1974 and had undertaken in the agreements executed by them. (63-B-C]

State of Haryana v. !age Ram, (1980] 3 SCR 746; State of A.P. v. Y.
Prabhakara Reddy, [1987) 2 SCC 136; State of Rajasthan v. Nandlal, [1993)
G Supp. 1 SCC 681, relied on.

Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) 1 SCC 109, held
inapplicable. ....
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4726-4728
H · of 1994.

r
SOLOMON ANTONY v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 55
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.94 of the Kerala High Court A
~-
in W.A. Nos, 1334, 1339 and 1343 of 1993.
A.
WITH

C.A. Nos. 4729-37, 4738, 4739, 4740-42, 4743, 4744-45, 4746-50,
4751-65, 4790, 4791-97, 4883,4884-86, 4887, 4888, 6111-12, 6113 of 1994, B
94195, 4115-16, 6679-82, 6815 of 1995, SLP(C) No. 4122198.

H.N. Salve, Solicitor General, Joseph Vellapalli, P. Krishnamoorthy,
--{,
D.D. Thakur, E.M.S. Anam, Fazlin Anam, Romy Chacko, Rajiv Mehta, Dilip
Pillai, M.P. Vinod, N.N. Bhatt, Roy Abraham, George Poonthotham, Ms.
Baby Krishnan, G. Prakash, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Lan Singlu Rongmei c
and Manukrishnan for the appcaiing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. For the excise year 1992-93 the State had
monopoly in the matter of supply of arrack. The privilege of vending the D
arrack was obtained through a licence and the licensees got their supply only
through the State owned or ·conn·olled distilleries. Such licensees were not
allowed to import any arrack or rectified spirit from outside the State. In the
excise yeai· 1993-94 commencing from April I, 1993 the State modified the
policy in this regard by G.O. (MS) No. 18/93ffD dated February 8, 1993. The
.._.. modifications effected in the policy are as follows :- E

(a) Abkari shops were to be auctioned groupwise.

(b) In the matter of supply of rectified spirit, the existing system
was to be discontinued, instead permits will be given to the
contractors (licensees) to bring "a designated quantum of rec- F
tified spirit dete1mined in relation to the auction amount".
;><
(c) The Board of Revenue was to ensure, before issue of permits,
that adequate arrangements are made for the timely collection
of duties, taxes, etc.
G
(d) Fool proof arrangements were to be made for enforcing equality
and no release of arrack was to be authorised till the contractor
satisfied the department about the required quality.".

Pursuant to this policy amendments were made to Rule 8 of the Dis-
posal in Auction Rules on March 4, 1993 and again on March 31, 1993. Under H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.

A amended Rule 8(1) it was provided that before the starting of the auction for
each group of arrack shops the auctioning officer shall announce in the
auction hall that permits will be issued to the contractors to import or purchase
a designated quantum of duty paid rectified spirit. The contractors will be
given No Objection Certificates for import or transport permits based on their
requests by the concerned Assistant Excise Commissioner. The contractors
B
shall remit the excise duty on the designated quantum of rectified spirit in
each month. The licensee could obtain. the duty paid rectified spirit either
from the distilleries in the State or from the distilleries in other States. Sub-
rule (6) was substituted to enable the contractors for opening godowns to store
duty paid rectified spirit for manufacturing arrack and for storage of manu-
c factured arrack on payment of the amounts of annual rental prescribed.
Similarly here the licensee could purchase the duty paid rectified spirit from
the distilleries in the State or import it from distilleries from outside the State.
Sub-rule 11 was substituted prescribing the procedure for remittance of duty.
Rule 8(1) was amended on March 31. 1993.
D Writ petitions were filed on the demand made by the State for payment
of excise duty on the designated quantum of rectified spirit and additionally
a contention was raised that the increase in excise duty on arrack from Rs. 5
to Rs. 10 per bulk litre by a notification issued on March 25, 1993 was also
invalid. The contractors challenged the levy of excise duty on the designated
E quantum of rectified spirit not actually imported as ultra vires Sections 17 and
18 of the Abkari Act rectified spirit was not fit for human consumption and,
therefore, levy was outside the purview of Entry 51 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. It was further contended that no rectified spirit
was produced within the State and, therefore, the levy of countervailing duty
on imported rectified spirit was impermissible in law.
F
The learned Single Judge who dealt with the writ petitions upheld these
contentions. He was of the view that (!) the levy of excise duty on rectified
spirit was without legislative competence and, therefore, the levy of such duty
is void; (2) the levy of excise duty which is countervailing duty on rectified
spirit is illegal; (3) the excise duty on undrawn rectified spirit or the quantum
G
of rectified spirit not supplied to the contractors levied pursuant to sub-rule
(!) of Rule 8 of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Amendment
Rules 1993 is illegal, and (4) excise duty levied and collected on the quantity
of rectified spirit actually supplied to or drawn by the contractors is valid.
Further, it was held that increase in excise duty from Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 per bulk
H litre of rectified spirit is arbitrary and, therefore, illegal.
SOLOMON ANTONY v. STATh [RAJENDRA BABU, J.J 57
The State canied the matter in appeal. The Full Bench of the High A
Court took the view that from the natme of the duty imposed it is clear tliat
it forms part of the consideration for parting witl1 the privilege confemd on
the licensees under the Abkari policy for !he year 1993-94 and, therefore, the
collection is good; that till the year 1992- 93 it was the State monopoly in
the matter of vending tl1e an-ack and it only allotted the quota of arrack or
rectified spirit to the contractors; that as the State was unable to meet the
B
requirements in full resulting in substantial loss to the revenue because of
large scale clandestine operations ca1ried on by the contractors, the policy
was, therefore, changed; that the State fixed the quantum by the policy which
could be imported with reference to the kist payable for the year 1992-93 and
the contractors were called upon lo pay the excise duty on that quantum c
pem1ittcd to he l111porteJ: that this Sll!p was 1aken by the State to augment tl1e
revenul! of the Slate; th<tt thLTC \\·as no obligation upon the State to supply
rectified spirit to the contractors having li1nited its obligation to the issue of
No Objection Cenificates and pctmils for import of the designated quantum
of rectified spirit; that the contractors who had panicipated in the auction
D
pursuant to U1e auction nuticc did so with full notice that tl1e State was not
undertaking any obligation to supply them any rectified spirit; that the State
obligation was only to issue No Objection Certificates and petmits to import
the designated quantum and no more; that the State is entitled to sell exclusive
privilege in regard to manufacture, storage, export, impon, sale or possession
of intoxicants liquor and alcohol and, therefore, as provided under Section E
l 8A of tl1e Alrack Act, it was lawful for the Government to grant to any
person exclusive privilege to sell liquor by retail within any local mea on
payment to Government of an amount as rental in consideration of the grant
of such privilege; tl1at the amount of rental may be fixed by auction or
negotiations or by any other method as may be determined by the Government F
from time to time and such amount may be collected to the exclusion of or
in addition to the duty or tax leviable under Sections 17 and J 8; that the
amount that may be collected under Section 18A for granting the privilege
is exclusive of or in addition to the duties or tax payable under Sections 17
and 18 of the Affack Act; that for the abkari year 1993-94 the Govenunent
granted two privileges (i) the privilege of vending affack and, (ii) the privilege
G
to procme the necessary quantity of arrack from outside the State for sale;
that to procure the requisite quantity of rectified spirit for a consideration
which the contractor had agreed is a privilege of the Government and to part
with such privilege the rental was fixed in the auction and the amount which
was described as "excise duty" on the designated quantum of rectified spirit H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.

A was allowed to be imported. The totality of these circumstances indicated that
these amounts were the consideration for the grant of the two privileges and ).
formed part of the consideration which is indivisible and integrated one for
the grant of both these privileges.

Thus summing up the position the Full Bench held that. what the
B contractors are required to pay is the consideration payable to the State for
being granted the two privileges as stated earlier and are, therefore, bound to
pay the amount which in its measure is equivalent to the excise duty payable
cin the designated quantum of rectified spirit under the terms of Rule 8 and
as undertaken in the agreements executed by the contractors. The High Court

c also noticed that the enhancement of duty from Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 per bulk litre
was also valid after fmding that there was nothing arbitrary in the enhance-
ment. The High Court felt that what is collected by the Govenunent was only
in the nature of a fee for privilege granted and not a levy of excise duty on
rectified spirit and, therefore, question of legislative competence would not
arise. Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal
-+
D by setting aside the order made by the learned Single Judge. Hence these
appeals by special leave.

Shri Joseph Vellapalli, the learned senior Advocate, submitted that the
consideration in a contract for sale of goods or privilege is entirely a matter
between the buyer and the seller and it is not open to the court to find out
E the quantum claimed by the buyer as duty at different stages and whether the
-.(

same constitutes 'consideration' by parting with any privilege. In the present
case, the subject matter of sale of rectified spirit by auction was the privilege
to vend arrack in specified shops and the obligation to pay duty on the
designated quantum of rectified spirit would at best be described as a 'con-
F dition' of the contract. The Legislature having specifically enacted Section
18A of the Arrack Act authorising the Executive to grant or sell exclusive
.._
privilege of selling liquor, there is no other part left witl1 the Executive to
grant privilege in respect of import of liquor. The obligation to pay duty on
import of rectified spirit having been imposed under the Jaw, it necessarily
follows that the contractors' liability to pay such duty can be determined only
G
in terms of and within the strict letter of Jaw. The obligation imposed under
the relevant Rules and the tender condition to pay duty on the designated
quantum of rectified spirit has to be construed as an obligation to pay the duty _,
as per the Act and no more. Shri D.D. Thakur, the learned senior Advocate
appearing for some of the appellants, supported the contentions raised by Shri
H Joseph Vellapalli and submitted that the character of demand in the present
SOLOMON ANTONY v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, l.] 59

~
case will clearly indica1e tbal it is in the uature of a tax or a duty which could A
not be levied on rectified spirit. Shri P. Krishuarnoorthy, the learned senior
J.
Advocate, submitted that even assuming it to be correct that the State granted
two privileges, namely, to vend in retail alcohol and to import the rectified
spirit, the levy on rectified spirit is not permissible in view of the decision
of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals IJd. and Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors.,
B
[1990] 1 sec 109, inasmuch as rectified spirit is not potable alcohol.

_, The learned Solicitor General appearing for the State submitted that the
State can _impose excise dnty in terms of Entry 51 of List II on alcoholic
liquors for human consumption. The entire field of legislation in regard to
intoxicants liquors the production, manufacture, possession, etc. are covered c
by Entry 8 of List II. The policy had been set out by the Government on
February 18, 1993 and the notice in regard to sale of privilege of vending
liquor had been given subject to the conditions set forth in the Kerala Abkari
Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules'] and Rule in this regard clearly enabled the State to collect the excise
duty on the designated quantum of rectified liquor in each month and the D
licensee shall purchase or import duty paid rectified spirit from the distilleries
in the State or from the distilleries in other States. Under the Kerala Abkari
Shops (Disposal in Auction) Amendment Rules, 1993 Form No. ii under the
heading "Agreement" was ame~ded so that the kist amount would include the
"excise duty on designated quantum of rectifjed spirit on the establislnucnt". E
He, therefore, contended that what was collected was on! y the 'kist amount'
which was not only to vend in retail alcohol but also to import rectified spirit
for conversion to alcohol and the measure of such kist amount was partly
based upon the quantum of rectified spirit. He further submitted that the rate
Rs. 5 per bulk litre had been amended to Rs. 10 per bulk litre by a notification
F
dated March 29, 1993 well befo,1'e the rates came into force and to be effected
from April I, 1993 and, therefore: tJi~. variations in the rate would also be
>-- justified.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

On March 4, 1993, notice [G.0.(P) No. 32/93ffD] was published in the
G
Kerala Gazette regarding the sale of privilege of vending toddy, arrack and
foreign liquor including coco-brandy in independent retail shops. It was made
clear in the notice that the auction sale will be held subject to the conditions
set forth in the Rules. The Abkari Policy for the year 1993-94 was armounced
to the effect that the system of tender-cum- auction would continue and in the H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A matter of snpply of rectified spirit the existing system will be discontinued
and instead permits will be given to the contractors to bring a designated
quantum of rectified spirit determined in relation to the auction amount
amongst other factors.

On March 4, 1993, the Rules were amended so as to substitute sub-rule
B (I) of Rule 8 by the following:

"(!) Before starting the auction in each group of arrack shops, the
auctioning officer shall announce in the auction hall that permits will
be issued to the contractors to import/purchase a designated quantum
of duty paid rectified spirit. The contractors will be given No Objec-
c tion Certificate and import/transport permits based on their requests,
by the Asst. Excise Commissioner concerned. The contractors shall
remit the excise duty on the designated quantum of rectified spirit in
each month. The licence shall purchase/import the duty paid rectified
spirit from the distilleries in the State or from the Distilleries in other
D States. However, in issuing permits, preference will be given to the
contractors to lift whatever quantity that can be supplied by the Public
Sector Distilleries in the State.

The said Rules were further amended on March 31, 1993 so as to include the
following clause:
E
IN PERMANENT AGREEMENT FORM NO.ii under the heading
"agreement" in the second paragraph after the words "kist amount'',
the following words shall be inserted namely:

"and excise duty on designated quantum of rectified spirit on the
F establishment."

On March 29, 1993, the notification was amended to enhance the rate -"
of duty from Rs.5 per bulk litre to Rs.10/-per bulk litre, which was to come
into effect from April 1, 1990.

G If the contractors have agreed to participate in the auction sale in terms
of the notificatious issued and the amended mies, it would make it clear that
the kist amount would include excise duty on designated quantum of rectified
spirit on the ·establishment. The argument put forth now is that the excise duty
on designated quantum of rectified spirit is payable only in terms of the Act
H and the rules which is in the nature of a tax or a levy and the State Government
-
SOLOMON ANTONY v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 61
is not competent to levy such excise duty on rectified spirit which is non- A
potable alcohol. This argument ignores the fact that the permit is granted to
A.
the contractors to import or purchase a designated quantum of duty paid
rectified spirit and excise duty on the designated quantum of rectified spirit
has to be paid each month which will be utilized for the purpose of manu-
facture of arrack and the kist amount payable would include the excise duty
B
on the designated quantum of rectified spirit. It means that the consideration
for parting with the privilege of vending arrack would include the considera-
tion equivalent to excise duty on the rectified spirit. Therefore, as is often said
by this Court, if the contra;tors with their eyes wide open have accepted the
terms of payment of consideration of the Kist inclusive of an amount eqn!va-
lent to excise duty on rectified spiri~ we find no substance in the argument c
advanced on behalf of the appellants that the excise duty payable even by way
of Kist is in the nature of a tax or a levy and not leviable under law by the
State.

Another facet of this contention is that even in cases of non-utilization
of the quota of rectified spirit permitted to be imported or drawn from State D
Distilleries the State is demanding the excise duty on the emire quantity.
Again, this submission loses sight of the te1ms of the agreement to the effect
that duty payable on unlifted quota of rectified spirit is also part of the amount
payable as kist on the designated quantity. The aforesaid two aspects have
·-,..- been effectively dealt with in some of the decisions of this Court to which E
we will advert now.

Jn fact, in the State of Haryana & Ors. v. ]age Ram & Ors., [1980] 3
SCR 746, this Court had occasion to consider a somewhat similar question.
In that case, Jage Ram held a ·re.tail licence to vend liquor on payment of a
licence fee calculated at Rs.17 .60 per litre for a quota of 62.100 proof litre. F
He defaulted in making the instalment payable by him and his licence was
cancelled. Thereafter, the retail vend was re-auctioned at his risk which
resulted in a loss to the State to the extent of Rs.7,41,577.40, which amount
he was called upon to pay. He filed a writ petition in the High Court
contending that the licence fee was not a fee but a 'still head' duty or an excise
G
duty, and the rule requiring the payment of such duty even when no quota of
alcohol was actually lifted by the licensee was unconstitutional and the
rationale to raise this contention was that there could be no liability to pay
still head duty or excise duty unless the licensee lifted the liquor. The High
Court upheld the contention and quashed the levy. On appeal by the State,
Chandrachud C.J. succinctly and with his usual felicity of expression sununed H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.

-
62
A up the position in law as under:

"the amount which the respondents agreed to pay to the State Gov-
ernment under the terms of the auction is neither afee properly so-
called which would require the existence of a quid pro quo, nor
indeed is the amount in the nature of excise duty, which by reason of
B the constitutional constraints has to be primarily a duty on the
production or manufacture ofgoods produced ur manufactured within
the country. The respondents cannot, therefore, complain that they
are being asked to pay 'excise duty' or 'still-head duty' on quota of
liquor not taken, lifted or purchased by them. The respondents agreed
to pay a certain sum under the terms of the auction and the Rules only
c prescribe a convenient mode whereby their liability was spread over
the entire year by splitting it up into fortnightly instalments. The
Rules might as well have provided for payment of a lump sum and
the very issuance of the licence could have been made to depend on
the payment of such sum. If it could not be argued in that event that
D the lump sum payment represented excise duty, it cannot be so argued
in lhe present event merely because lhe quota for which lhe respond-
ents gave tl1eir bid is required to be multiplied by a certain figure per
proof litre and furtl1er because the respondents were given the facility
of paying lhe amount by instalments while lifting the quota from time
E to time. What the respondents agreed to pay was the price of a
privilege which the State parted with in their favour."[emphasis
supplied]

To similar effect, this Court again in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Y.
PrabhakaraReddy, [1987] 2 SCC 136, stated that under a public auction the
F licence to sell liquor might be granted by the State subject to (1) payment of
rental being the highest bid at the auction, (2) tl1e requirement that the
licensee shall purchase arrack at the issue price, and (3) the further require-
ment that the licensee shall purchase a minimum guaranteed quantity of
arrack, which he has to make good in case of short fall. In that case, it was
noticed that the consideration for the grant of the privilege to sell liquor is
G
not merely the rental to be paid by tl1e contractor but also the issue price of
the arrack supplied or treated as supplied in case of short fall, which is also
to be paid by the contractors. It was further observed that there is no question
of the contractors having to pay the excise duty though it may be that the issue
price is arrived at after taking into account the excise duty payable and
H eventually held that the amount payable by the contractors was not excise
SOLOMON ANTONY v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 63
duty on undrawn liquor, but was part of the price which they had agreed to A
,I. pay for the grant of the privilege to sell liquor. This view is again reiterated
in the decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Nandlal & Ors., [1993] Supp.
1 sec 681.

The facts as stated above make it clear that the contractors are required
to pay the consideration payable to the State for sale of the liquor, namely B
arrack and by importing designated quantity of rectified spirit in respect of
which the consideration payable is equi.valent to excise duty. Thus the High
Court is justified in holding that the contractors are bound to pay the amount
which is a measured excise duty payable on the designated quantum of
rectified spirit in terms of rule 8 of the Rules and had undertaken in the c
agreements executed by them.

The other point raised is in relation to the enhancement of the rate of
excise duty from Rs.5 per bulk litre to Rs. IO per bulk litre of arrack made
on 29.3.1993. The learned Single Judge took the view that Rule 8(9) of the
Rules enabled the Government to enhance the excise duty only if it is found D
necessary and the learned Single Judge found that there was no necessity for
enhancement. While the justification offered is that in respect of imported
rectified spirit the duty payable on one litre of arrack 75' proof worked out

- y-
to Rs.85.73 whereas even the enhancement to Rs.10/- imposed only a duty
of Rs.22.13. In other words, the argument was that this enhancement was
necessary to balar,ce the duty on imported rectified spirit. On this basis the
E
Division Bench upheld the revision in excise duty from Rs.5 per bulk litre
to Rs. I0 per bulk litre of arrack. If it is the excise duty and the Govenunent
has found certain rate to be appropriate, we do not think that it would be open
to arrack. In this case, explanation was offered by the Government to make
such adjustments in the matter of excise duty payable on bulk litre of arrack. F
Therefore, we find no substance in the challenge to this enhancement.

In this view of the matter, we find no substance in any one of the
.... contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. These appeals and the special
leave petition, therefore, deserve to be and stand dismissed. In the circum-
stances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.
G

V.S.S. Appeals and Petition dismissed.
·r