9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Levying of excise duty on processors of base yarn producing textured yarn. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of whether excise duty can be imposed on processors who convert base yarn into "texturised yarn." The petitioners in this case do not manufacture yarn but process base yarn to create textured yarn. The entry under consideration is Entry 18, which specifies the rates of duty for different types of man-made filament yarns, including textured yarn. The explanation in the entry defines textured yarn as yarn processed to introduce crimps, coils, loops, or curls. The court interprets the entry to mean that excise duty is applicable to textured yarn, regardless of whether the processor manufactures the base yarn or not. Texturising yarn is considered a manufacturing activity subject to excise duty. The court rejects the argument that processors should not be liable for duty on textured yarn if they do not manufacture the base yarn themselves. It emphasizes that the duty is imposed on the product, which is the textured yarn, and not on the person processing it. The judgment also addresses the contention that processors should not have to pay the same rate of duty as manufacturers who both produce and texturise the yarn. The court explains that the government issued a notification to prevent double taxation, ensuring that duty paid on the base yarn is deducted from the duty on the processed yarn. This exemption mechanism avoids imposing duty twice on the same yarn. The court emphasizes that duty is levied on the item, not the person, and therefore, the rate of duty on textured yarn should remain consistent, regardless of whether it is manufactured by the base yarn producer or a processor. The judgment dismisses the writ petition, upholding the imposition of excise duty on processors of base yarn producing textured yarn, citing the clarity of the entry and the rationale behind the duty imposition to prevent double taxation.
|
