JULLUNDUR RUBBER GOODS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

JULLUNDUR RUBBER GOODS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Section 12(2) of the Rubber Act provides for the method of collection and does not alter the essential nature of the tax as excise duty; the incidence may be shifted to users but remains within legislative competence. The Act and Rules provide sufficient guidance, controls, and clarity as to the levy on manufacturers, and there is no violation of Article 14.

Parties
Appellant: Jullundur Rubber Goods Manufacturers' Association; Respondent No. 1: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 August 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From a High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Delegated Legislation, Discrimination Under Article 14
Constitutional Law Taxation Law Administrative Law Excise Duty Delegated Legislation Discrimination Under Article 14

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jullundur Rubber Goods Manufacturers' Association

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From a High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether levy and collection of duty under s. 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 as amended is outside the ambit of Entry 84 of List I (Seventh Schedule) and beyond Parliament's legislative competence.
  2. 2 Whether s. 12(2) of the Rubber Act suffers from excessive delegation and confers uncontrolled discretion violating Article 14.
  3. 3 Whether the Rules framed under s. 12(2) indicate with sufficient clarity on whom the levy is to be made.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 12(2) of the Rubber Act provides for the method of collection and does not alter the essential nature of the tax as excise duty; the incidence may be shifted to users but remains within legislative competence. The Act and Rules provide sufficient guidance, controls, and clarity as to the levy on manufacturers, and there is no violation of Article 14.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.