Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 710 (JHR)

Neganum Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-09-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ, application the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether affixing the Hologram on the bottles of foreign liquor by retail trader violates the provisions of Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. 2. Petitioner M/s. Neganum Suppliers Pvt. Limited (N.S.P.L.) is engaged in the business of retail sale of India made foreign liquor under a license issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Bokaro. The Commissioner of Excise, Jharkhand, Ranchi issued order dated 1.6.2005 to all Assistant Commissioner/Superintendent of Excise directing stoppage of affixture of hologram on the bottles of India made foreign liquor and to take appropriate action against such user. In compliance of the aforesaid order respondent No. 4 Inspector of Excise, Bokaro inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that in all the bottles of India made foreign liquor hologram was affixed. Accordingly, the said respondent ordered stoppage of sale of India made foreign liquor with immediate effect. 3. Mr. D.V. Pathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order and action of the respondents as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that fixture of hologram on the bottles of foreign liquor by retail dealers showing the name of the shop does not at all violates any of the provisions of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 and the Rules made there under. Learned Counsel submitted that there is no allegation from the side of the respondents that specification necessarily to be printed on the labels with the approval of the Excise Commissioner was not affixed on the bottles or the petitioner in any way changed or made any alteration or interpolation of the labels which were affixed on the bottles. The action of the respondents is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that on inspection it was found that petitioner is using the sticker/hologram on the bottle of foreign liquor which is illegal and in violation of Rules 41, 42 and 42A of the Bihar Excise Act. It is further stated that petitioner was asked for submission of explanation and in reply whereof he apologizes his action before the Assistant Commissioner of Ex- else, Bokaro. The license held by the petitioner does not provide any right to use hologram on the body of the bottles. 5. It is further stated that petitioner was asked for submission of explanation and in reply whereof he apologizes his action before the Assistant Commissioner of Ex- else, Bokaro. The license held by the petitioner does not provide any right to use hologram on the body of the bottles. 5. Before appreciating the case of the parties, I would like to refer the Rules 41, 42, 42A and 42B of the Bihar Excise Rules, which reads as under : Rule 41.--Bottle containing liquor compounded or blended in India for sale must bear labels specifying the nature of the liquor contained therein, i.e., whether it is whisky, Brandy, Gin, Rum, Liquor or Wine, the name of the district where it is bottled, the name of the bottler and the country of origin. Rule 42.--Bottles filled in India with liquor imported in bulk from foreign countries when intended for sale, must bear labels specifying the nature of the liquor contained therein, the country or origin the name of the bottler and the fact that the bottling was done in India. Rule 42-A.--Each label as mentioned in Rule 41 & 42 must before being used be submitted to the Excise Commissioner for his approval and its registration and after that for annual renewal on payment of prescribed fee and must not be used without such approval and registration or renewal, as the case may be. The Excise Commissioner may approve, reject or withdraw any label from use, whenever he considers that any such label doesnt conform to the rules or is in anyway so colored, drawn or worded as to mislead the public regarding the nature for the liquor contained in bottles or receptacle. Rule 42B--A fee of Rs. 10.000/-(rupees ten thousand) only for the first approval and registration of each label and subsequently a fee of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only for renewal of its approval and registration under Rule 42A shall be payable in advance by the licencee/manufacturer/suppliers. The fee as provided in the rule shall be chargeable on the foreign liquor imported from out side the State or outside the country which are intended for sale in the State of Bihar/Jharkhand. 6. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only for renewal of its approval and registration under Rule 42A shall be payable in advance by the licencee/manufacturer/suppliers. The fee as provided in the rule shall be chargeable on the foreign liquor imported from out side the State or outside the country which are intended for sale in the State of Bihar/Jharkhand. 6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is manifestly clear that it is mandatory and obligatory for the manufacturer and/or bottlers of India made foreign liquor to affix labels on the bottles specifying the nature of the liquor contained therein i.e., whether it is whisky, -brandy, gin, rum, liquor or wine, the names of the district where it is bottled, the name of the bottler and the country of origin. Each label as mentioned in Rules 41 and 42 must be approved by the Excise Commissioner before it is used and on payment of prescribed fee. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was selling the bottles without having any labels put by the manufacturer or bottlers. It must be kept in mind that petitioner is neither manufacturer nor bottler of India made foreign liquor, rather he is a retail seller of foreign liquor on the basis of valid license issued by the Excise Commissioner. The only charge against the petitioner is that he affixed hologram on the cap of the bottle. Both the petitioner and the respondents have annexed the said hologram as annexure to the writ application and the counter affidavit. This hologram is blue coloured small piece of paper where it is written "NSPL". The word NSPL denotes the name of the ship of the petitioner and the word Bokaro shows the place where shop is situated. In other words the hologram on the bottle will show that the foreign liquor was purchased from the petitioners shop and nothing else. It can not be disputed that India made foreign liquor are sold even by the persons who are not having license to vend in retailed trade of liquor. Even spurious liquor is sold by unlicensed persons. In my opinion, if the name of the shop wherefrom foreign liquor is purchased is affixed on the bottle, this will check the spurious and illegal sale of foreign liquor by unlicensed retail dealers. 7. Even spurious liquor is sold by unlicensed persons. In my opinion, if the name of the shop wherefrom foreign liquor is purchased is affixed on the bottle, this will check the spurious and illegal sale of foreign liquor by unlicensed retail dealers. 7. Be that as it may, the manner and the purpose for which petitioner affixed hologram on the bottle does not violates any rules much less the rule quoted herein above. The action of respondent No. 3, Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Bokaro stopping the sale of bottles by the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the order dated 8.6.2005 issued by respondent No. 4 Inspector of Excise, Bokaro is quashed.