" Page 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13408 of 2025 M/s. Pernod Ricard India (P) Limited …. Petitioner Ms. Pami Rath, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 19.03.2026 01. 1. Aggrieved by Order dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in Excise Appeal Case No.2 of 2023 (Annexure-11) affirming the direction of the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda, Bhubaneswar, vide his letter dated 30th December, 2014, to deposit the demanded amount as pointed out in the Audit (Annexure-4 series), the petitioner having a Bottling Unit at Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):- “In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling the Opposite Parties to show cause as and if they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then issue appropriate order/orders, direction/directions or writ/writs: i. Set aside Order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Excise Appeal No.02/2023 at Annexure-11; Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 5 ii. Quash order dated 30.12.2014 issued by the Superintendent of Excise Khurda at Annexure-4 Series; iii. Quash order dated 18.12.2014 issued by Asst. Audit office Excise Department letter dated 17.7.2013 referred to in audit objection dated 18.12.2014 at Annexure-4 Series; iv. Quash audit report dated 12.3.2013 on the basis of which all the demands have been made; v. Further, direct the Opposite Parties not to impose transport fee along with import fee on the consignment imported by the Petitioner. AND Issue such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, learned Advocate submitted that the Assistant Audit Officer, Excise Department has raised objection to the effect that: “During the year (2011-12 and 2012-13) the bottling units have lifted 74,37,100 BL (3669000BL + 3768100BL) from outside the State for preparation of IMFL. Though prescribed import fees was realized, yet no transport fee appeared to have been realized”. 2.1. It is submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay transport fee for importing RS/ENA from outside the State to its Unit for preparation/manufacturing of IMFL as it discharged levy of import fee on such RS/ENA being imported from outside the State. Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 5 2.2. It is vehemently contended that the demand raised in respect of the transport fee for importing such goods would tantamount to double levy on the same subject-matter/transaction. 3. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State supported the affirmation of demand in Appeal by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack. 4. Heard Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State. 5. During the periods 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Bihar and Odisha Excise Act, 1915 was in vogue. In the said Act, the word ‘Transport’ was defined in Section 2(21) to mean “to remove from one place to another within the State”. On perusal of the audit objection it transpired that the entire demand has been rested on account of non-payment of transport fee for importing RS/ENA from outside the State for preparation of IMFL. From the above definition, it is clear that transport fee is amenable to be levied on the consignment of goods moving from one place to another within the State. 5.1. Since the goods in question have been imported by the petitioner from outside the State, the audit objection so raised, pursuant to which demand has been raised and confirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, in the appeal has no legs to stand. Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 5 6. This Court having taken note of clarification issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack in Letter No.LVIII- 143/08-466/Ex. Dated 20th January, 2009 (Annexure-6), in M/s. Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd., Rayagada vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.21832 of 2013, disposed of on 1st August, 2022 observed as follows:- “3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to the Court to letter dated 20th January, 2009 issued by the Excise Commissioner as instructions to the Accountant General (CW & RA), Orissa, Bhubaneswar where, inter alia, it is stated as under: “In this connection it is to mention here that in the Excise policy it is stipulated that the levy of import fee to be collected only for import of RS/ENA from import of RS/ENA from the outside the State of Orissa to the bottling units in the State. And also as per definition import fee is applicable only for import of consignment into the State from outside the State and transport fee is applicable in case of transport of consignment from one place to another within the State. Hence, the demand raised by the Audit towards “Non-levy of Transport fee on ENA-36.57 lakh may not be charged simultaneously for import of ENA from outside the State.” 4. In view of the clarification issued to the Accountant General by the Excise Commissioner himself, it is plain that no transport fee is applicable where the consignment comes from outside the State. It is applicable only where the consignment goes from one place to another within the State. 7. This Court finds force in the submission of Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Advocate that RS/ENA being imported by the petitioner from outside the State to its Bottling Unit for the purpose Printed from counselvise.com Page 5 of 5 of preparation of IMFL thereat, the demand raised in respect of the transport fee is untenable and unwarranted. In view of the above decision of this Court and the clarification of the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack, the demand raised by the Superintendent of Excise, Khordha at Bhubaneswar based on Audit Objection of Audit Officer, Excise Department is liable to be quashed and this Court does so. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in Excise Appeal Case No.2 of 2023 confirming the direction issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda, Bhubaneswar vide Letter dated 30th December, 2014 based on Half-Margin Memo No.4371/Ex., dated 18th December, 2014 issued by the Assistant Audit Officer, Excise Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar stand quashed and set aside. As consequence thereto, the writ petition is disposed of being allowed. 9. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, Interlocutory Application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Mar-2026 19:45:51 Signature Not Verified "