Judgment 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 90 of the Rules formed under section 90 of the Bihar Excise Act (for short the Act) as well as the demand notice made by the Excise authorities for establishment charge. 2. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (1996)10 Supreme Court Cases 11 [: 1997(1) PLJR (SC) 34], learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, has given up the aforesaid point of challenge to the vires of Rule 9 of the Rules. Now, the petitioner has confined his prayer only to the quashing of the demand notice. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-Unit is holding a composite licence in Forms 25 and 28A and is engaged in manufacturing/production of denatured spirit and spirit for use in the manufacture of potable liquors at its distillery at Narkatiyaganj in State of Bihar. 4. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case held that Rule 9 of the Rules will apply only to those distilleries, which are licensed solely and wholly for the purpose of manufacture of denatured spirit or other commercial spirit, but would not apply to those distilleries, which are holding composite licence for manufacturing of denatured spirit and spirit for manufacture of potable liquor. 5. The. assertion made on behalf of the petitioner is that it has a composite licence under Forms 25 and 28A and is engaged in manufacturing spirit used for making potable liquor, apart from denatured spirit. In such a situation, the demand for establishment charge cannot be made by the excise authorities. 6. In that view of the matter, this writ application is allowed and the impugned demand notice, as contained in Annexure 1 is quashed. However, if any amount has been paid by the petitioner towards the establishment charge, the same should be refunded to it in accordance with law.