The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a tobacco manufacturer challenging recent Central Excise notifications introducing capacity-based levy for chewing tobacco.
The bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held that the notifications were prima facie neither arbitrary nor beyond the legislative powers granted under the law.
The order was passed by Justice Om Narayan Rai while hearing a writ petition filed by S.A. Aromatics Private Limited and one of its directors. The petitioners had challenged three notifications issued on December 31, 2025, under the Central Excise Act, 1944 that regulate the method of determining excise duty for certain tobacco products.
The petitioners, tobacco manufacturers engaged in the manufacture of scented chewing tobacco, approached the High Court seeking to quash the notifications and the related rules. They argued that the notifications—issued under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act—were arbitrary and ultra vires the statute as well as the Constitution.
According to the petitioners, the notifications imposed a mechanism for duty determination that allegedly exceeded the powers granted to the Central Government. They also sought an interim order restraining the authorities from giving effect to the notifications during the pendency of the writ petition.
Counsel appearing for the Union of India and the Central GST and Central Excise authorities defended the notifications, arguing that they were validly issued under the statutory framework of the Central Excise Act.
The government maintained that the rules provided a structured process for duty determination. This includes declaration of production capacity, verification by the Assistant Commissioner, physical inspection of the manufacturing facility, and a final determination order.
After examining the provisions and arguments, the High Court observed that the rules and notifications form part of a comprehensive mechanism under Section 3A for assessing excise duty based on production capacity.
The Court noted that the process does not end with mere calculations but also includes verification, inspection of the factory, and formal determination by the authorities. This indicated that adequate safeguards and procedural checks were built into the framework.
The court held that the notifications do not appear to exceed the legislative mandate of the Central Excise Act or violate constitutional principles at this stage.
The Court declined to grant interim protection to the petitioners. It ruled that there was no prima facie case to stay the operation of the notifications.
However, the Court directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, after which the petitioners may file a reply within two weeks. The matter will be listed for further hearing after completion of the exchange of affidavits.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. S.A. Aromatics Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 1882 of 2026
Date: 06.03.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Read More: Delhi Customs Seizes Nearly 2 Kg Gold At Delhi’s IGI Airport
