' The facts giving rise to this Constitutional writ are that the petitioner Abbasi Textile Mills Limited, Rahimyarkhan, has two gates for its business premises. One of these gates is on the northern side while the other is on the eastern side. The northern gate is known as the main gate. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Multan, who is respondent No. 1 in this petition, directed the petitioner, under rule 228-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to close the gate on the eastern side of its premises. His order was challenged by the petitioner by means of an appeal before the Collector Central Excise and Land Customs, Multan, but without success. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for seeking a declaration to the effect that the orders passed by the respondents, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that rule 228-A of the Central Excise Rules was ultra vires of the Central Excises and Salt Act and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents was a nullity in the eye of law and without jurisdiction. Rule 228-A reads as under:- "228-A. Miscellaneous.-Every manufacturer of excisable goods shall keep all doors of the factory, except the main gate, locked and shall open them only in case of emergency and necessity and with the permission of the proper officer."
' The said rule has been framed under section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Relevant provisions of section 37 read as follows:- "37.-(1) The Central Board of Revenue may make rules to carry into effect the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may;
(i) regulate the removal of excisable goods from the place where produced, stored or manufactured or subjected to any process of production or manufacture and their transport to or from the premises of a licensed person, or a bonded warehouse, or to a market;
3. The, plea raised before me by the learned counsel was also advanced before the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs. It was overruled by him for the following reasons:- "The contention that rule 228-A is itself ultra vires of the rule-making authority emanating under section 37 of the Act is also not maintainable as the Board is fully authorised to make rules to 'bring into effect the purposes of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The idea behind the law to keep the other gates locked is to prevent their usage for removal of excisable goods. With the windows remaining open there is always a possibility of calendestine removal. Hence rule 228-A which is nothing but a rule framed to bring into effect the purposes of Central Excise Act and, therefore, is in.
Line with the Act and is not ultra vires. The Assistant Collector has already taken a lenient view and has warned them to close the windows and the gate. They should have complied with the requirements. Instead they have preferred in appeal which is not maintainable and is rejected."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rule 228-A was beyond the scope of clause (iv) of subsection (2) of section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act because the petitioner could not be asked to close a gate with a view to for regulating the removal of goods. He compared the provisions of rule 228-A with those of rule 224 of the Central Excise Rules and said that whereas rule 224 was not ultra vires of the provisions of clause (iv) of subsection (2) of section 37, rule 228-A was so. Rule 224 is to the following effect:- "224. Restrictions on removal of goods.-(1) Goods may not be delivered from a factory licensed under these rules, or from a warehouse, before six o'clock in the forenoon or after six o'clock in the afternoon, nor at any hour on Sundays and public holidays, except by permission of the Collector, and under such conditions, and on payment of such fees, as the Central Board of Revenue or the Collector may by general or special order require.
(2) No goods shall be removed from a factory or a warehouse on the day appointed for the presentation of the annual or any supplementary budget of the Federal Government."
5. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did keep the eastern gate of its premises closed and that it was only a window provided therein which was opened to enable the workers to get in and get out of the factory premises with the change of each shift. In this connection, it was urged by him that the Excise Authorities had nothing to do with the entry and exit of the workers and so they could not object to the provision of window in the gate in question.
6. Taking the last plea of the learned counsel first, I will like to point out that the objection of the Excise Authorities to the gate on the eastern side is not that the workers should not use this gate for the purpose of coming in and going out of the factory premises. They have taken exception to the opening of the said. Gate or of the window provided therein as they apprehend the calendestine removal of goods from the said gate or the window. What is, therefore, to be seen is whether the respondents can direct the total closure of the gate for the purpose of regulating the removal of goods.
7. According to rule 228-A, the respondents could direct the petitioner to close the gate in dispute.
It seems that the said rule was framed in view of the provisions of clause (iv) of subsection (2) of section 37 which empowered the Central Board of Revenue to make rules inter alia for the purpose of regulating the removal of goods. Besides the said provisions, subsection (1) of section 37 authorised the Board of Revenue to frame rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act, namely, the Central Excises and Salt Act. As is evident from its preamble and Chapter II, one of the purposes of the Act is the levy and collection of duties of excise on goods manufactured and produced in the country. The Central Board of Revenue could, therefore, frame rules with a view to ensuring the collection of the said duty by plugging all possible holes which could be exploited by the manufacturers for avoiding the payments of the duty. It would, therefore, appear that even if rule 228-A was beyond the scope of clause (iv) o subsection (2) of section 37 of the Act, its inclusion in the rules w warranted by the general provisions contained in subsection (1) o section 37 of the Act.
8. As indicated above, it was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that rule 224 does not offend against the provisions of section 37. That rule relates to the timings of the removal of goods. As against this rule 228-A pertains to the outlets provided for the removal of goods. Both these rules have been framed for the purpose of regulating the removal of goods. Therefore, if rule 224 is infra vires of section 37; there is hardly any justification for taking a contrary view in regard to rule 228-A.
9. 1 am, therefore, of the view that rule 228-A is not ultra vires of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and since the order impugned herein was made on the basis of the said rule it is unexceptionable. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.