JUDGMENT V.N. Mehrothra, J. - This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Praying that the orders dated 27-10-1980 and 24-11-1980 (Annexures 2 and 3) passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, U.P. Gorakhpur, levying excise duty to the amount of Rs. 39,401/13 P. for storage wastage on spiced country liquor be quashed. 2. The petitioner has alleged that it has been granted licence in Fore P.O. 2 and manufactures spirit high strengths and Indian Made Foreign Liquors. The transport, possession manufacture, imports and exports of liquor is controlled under the U.P. Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder. Under Section 28 of the Act the State Government has the power for imposing excise duty or countervailing duty on the liquor manufactured in the distillery. It has been provided that duty will be collected at the time when excisable article is issued either from the Brewary, distillery or bonded warehouse for sale. There is no provision under the Act which empowers levy of duty when there is wastage in storage. 3. Section 29 of the U.P. Excise Act provides that in the case of spirit manufactured in any distillery, the duty will be leviable/charged on the quantity provided or issued from the distillery. The various Notifications which prescribe the rate of duty clearly show that the duty is collected according to the place where the article is removed for consumption. Rule 813 provides for wastages in respect of different kinds of spirits stored in a distillery. This rule has been amended by a Notification dated 8-2- 1978. Under this provision wastages in respect of Sophisticated spirit and rectified spirit has to be taken into account. The Excise Commissioner and the officers subordinate to him have been calculating the wastages in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid rules. Accordingly when stock taking was done the storage wastages have been arbitrarily calculated. The petitioner's distillery was inspected by the Audit Party and they interpreted the aforesaid rule contemplating that the permissible wastage in respect of sophisticated spirit be taken separately and the wastages be calculated in respect of each kind of spirit. 4. On the basis of this objection the Excise Inspector, Incharge of the petitioner distillery, directed the petitioner to pay excise duty on the excess storage wastage by his order dated 19-5-1980. 4. On the basis of this objection the Excise Inspector, Incharge of the petitioner distillery, directed the petitioner to pay excise duty on the excess storage wastage by his order dated 19-5-1980. On the basis of the letter by the Excise Inspector wastages had been calculated and the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Gorakhpur has levied a sum of Rs. 39,401/13 paisa towards the allowed storage wastage on the spiced country liquor by his order dated 27-10-1980. The petitioner asserts that no excise duty could be levied on the liquor allegedly wasted during storage as the duty could be levied only in respect of the liquor which was issued for human consumption and the Excise Commissioner could not be empowered to levy duty on the wastage. The Provisions of Rule 813 as amended by Notification dated 8-2-1978 were ultravirus. 5. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that under the provisions of Rule 813 certain allowance has been granted in respect of wastage for different kinds of spirit stored in a distillery. Under this rule, actually, the duty is not levied by the Excise Commissioner but it provides for some relief to the distilleries in respect of wastage during storage. It is contended that the rule could not be said to be ultravirus or invalid. It has also been contended that the excise duty can be levied on excess wastage in respect of spiced spirit stored in the distillery. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the State. It has been held by this court as well as by the Supreme Court in several cases, that the excise duty is levied on the manufacture of articles. In the case of liquor for human consumption also, the State Government has provided for the imposition of duty on the manufacture of the same. This provision has been made under Section 28 of the U.P. Excise Act. This duty could be collected either at the time of manufacture itself or at some subsequent stage. It may be collected at the time when liquor is actually issued for consumption. However, merely because the duty is collected at the time the same is issued for consumption from the distillery or a bonded ware house it cannot be said that it is levied on the sale of liquor. It remains a duty on the manufacture of the liquor. However, merely because the duty is collected at the time the same is issued for consumption from the distillery or a bonded ware house it cannot be said that it is levied on the sale of liquor. It remains a duty on the manufacture of the liquor. Thus, though under Section 29 of the Act the Excise duty may be collected when the liquor is issued from the bonded warehouse, still it is a duty on the manufacture of the same. 7. Under Rule 813 Excise Manual (Volume I) as well as under Rule 814 certain allowances have been granted to the manufacturer on wastage of liquor at the time of storage or during the transportation of export. Actually both these rules provide for some concession or allowance to the manufacturer. These rules do not levy any excise duty which would not have been payable by the manufacturer. 8. Under the provisions of Rule 813, as amended on 8th February, 1978, wastage allowance to the extent of .7% is permissible on plain and spiced liquor. Similarly in case of rectified spirit and sophisticated spirit wastage allowance to the extent of .4% has been provided. This rule further provides that if the total wastage on any kind of spirit does not exceed 1.5%duty will be charged on the net wastage in excess of the free allowance. But if the total wastage exceeds 1.5% the duty shall be liable to be charged on the whole wastage without allowing for the free allowance at a rate which has been mentioned in the rule. This rule has obviously been framed in order to avoid any unauthorised removal of the liquor and to reduce the possibility' of commission of fraud in such matter. 9. It is well recognised that there is no fundamental right in respect of carrying of business in liquor. The legal position is now well settled that no one has any inherent or absolute right to carry on business of manufacture and sale of intoxicants. The State can control and regulate. it completely. It may undertake to carry on activities of manufacture, export, import, transport, or sell directly. It may in its discretion permit the carrying on of any such activity to the extent that subject to such conditions and on such terms as it may consider appropriate. 10. The State can control and regulate. it completely. It may undertake to carry on activities of manufacture, export, import, transport, or sell directly. It may in its discretion permit the carrying on of any such activity to the extent that subject to such conditions and on such terms as it may consider appropriate. 10. Considering these facts it cannot be said that either Rule 813 imposes any excise duty which is not leviable under Section 28 or 29 of the Act or it is ultra-vires of the powers of the Excise Commissioner. 11. The Deputy Excise Commissioner has required the petitioner to pay excise duty on the excess wastage in respect of the spiced liquor stored in the distillery. It cannot be said that this order was in any was invalid or illegal. This writ petition should, therefore, be dismissed. 12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.