Under our Constitution there is considerable intermingling of the governmental functions, or large part of the legislative function is carried by Ordinances promulgated by the Head of the State and in considering the validity of the impugned amendments and the notifications issued by the National Board of Revenue under the provisions of section 3(4) of the Excise and Salt Act, 1944 they had the sanction of law and, as such, taxation power was also expressly saved by Article 83 of the Constitution. Bangladesh and ors vs Eastern Beverage Industries Ltd & anr 56 DLR (AD) 153.

The National Board of Revenue acted within its authority and had the basis for levy of excise duty on production capacity.
The Appellate Division observed that the notification go to show that the same was not arbitrary or excessive delegation but has a rational and factual basis in making assessment on the basis of filling valves for assessment of tax on the production of aerated water of all sorts under heading Beverages. On perusal of the writ petition it appears to the Appellate Division that the writ petitioner-respondents have not challenged the imposition of the surcharge of the imported goods but the High Court Division set aside the development surcharge as well which was not the subject matter of the rule or of the impugned notification.In that view of the matter omnibus declaration by impugned order as regards the development surcharge to have been levied without lawful authority is not sustainable in law. There being lawful basis for the impugned notification providing levy and assessment of duty on the basis of filling valves in respect of production of Aerated water of all sorts on the basis of the guideline provided in the impugned S.R.O, the impugned order of the High Court Division is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
Bangladesh -Vs.- M/s. Eastern Beverage Industries Ltd. (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)48

Payment of excise duty­- Bata Shoe Company claimed exemption from payment of excise duty on the footwears purchased by it for its trading purpose–whether this plea of exemption tantamount to fraud on the statute–The basis of the exemption from payment of excise duty is the manufacture of footwears without the aid of any machinery or equipment operated by power, steam or gas­ exemption cannot .be denied by giving a strained meaning to the term "manufacture" and directing Bata to pay the excise duty on foot wears not mechanically produced and purchased by Bata Shoe for its trading purpose, only because they were sold under the Bata's printing and packing, when Bata asserted that the fixing of its trade name, embossing of price and the packing were all done by non–mechanical process. National Board of Revenue vs Messrs Bata Shoe Co. 42 DLR (AD) 195.