1979 (2) TMI 111 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Central Government's order dated 14th July, 1977.
2. Interpretation of "non-cellulosic origin" in the context of acrylic fibre.
3. Applicability of the principle that ambiguity in fiscal legislation should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.
4. Adequacy of reasons in the impugned order.
5. Proper verification of the petition.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Central Government's order dated 14th July, 1977:
The petitioners challenged the Central Government's order dated 14th July, 1977, which set aside the Appellate Collector's decision and restored the Assistant Collector's order. The Assistant Collector had levied a duty of Rs. 15 per kg on yarn containing 93% acrylic fibre and 7% nylon tops, classifying it under Sl. No. 2(b)(i) of Notification No. 52/72-C.E., dated 17th March, 1972. The Appellate Collector had reversed this, holding that acrylic fibre should not be considered as non-cellulosic fibre for the purpose of determining the duty rate.

2. Interpretation of "non-cellulosic origin" in the context of acrylic fibre:
The core issue revolved around whether acrylic fibre falls under the category of "synthetic staple fibre of non-cellulosic origin." The petitioners argued that acrylic fibre should not be considered non-cellulosic based on the language of the notification, which explicitly excluded acrylic fibre in certain contexts. The court noted that the expression "other than" before "acrylic fibre" in the notification indicated a distinction between non-cellulosic fibres and acrylic fibre. The court found merit in the petitioners' argument that the notification's language suggested acrylic fibre should not be included in the non-cellulosic category.

3. Applicability of the principle that ambiguity in fiscal legislation should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer:
The court emphasized that any ambiguity in fiscal legislation should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. This principle was reiterated by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, AIR 1963 S.C. 791, which stated that expressions in fiscal statutes should be understood as they are in the world of commerce. The court found that the Appellate Collector's interpretation, which favored the taxpayer, was reasonable and supported by trade understanding.

4. Adequacy of reasons in the impugned order:
The petitioners contended that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasoning. However, the court found that the order, in the context of the show cause notice, provided adequate reasons for the Central Government's decision. The court rejected the argument that the order was deficient in reasoning.

5. Proper verification of the petition:
The revenue argued that the petition was not properly verified. The court dismissed this contention, noting that the authority of the Factory Manager, who verified the petition, was not challenged. The court concluded that the verification was adequate.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the Central Government's order dated 14th July, 1977, and restored the Appellate Collector's order dated 4th June, 1975. The court directed the government to act in accordance with the Appellate Collector's order. The rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.