9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether excise duty can be levied on processors of base yarn obtaining texturised yarn. Analysis: The main issue in this case revolves around the question of whether excise duty can be imposed on processors who are involved in processing base yarn to obtain texturised yarn. The petitioners in this case do not manufacture yarn but engage in processing base yarn to introduce crimps, coils, loops, or curls. The argument put forth is that since they do not undertake any manufacturing activity, they should not be liable to pay excise duty. The relevant entry under which excise duty is sought to be levied is Entry 18, specifically Entry 18(II) which pertains to man-made filament yarns. The entry distinguishes between non-cellulosic yarn, which can be texturised, and provides for a lower duty on untextured yarn. The explanation within the entry defines "textured yarn" as yarn processed to introduce certain characteristics. The court interprets this to mean that processing base yarn to create texturised yarn constitutes manufacturing textured yarn, which is subject to excise duty as prescribed. The court rejects the argument that only manufacturers of base yarn who also texturise the yarn should be subject to excise duty. It clarifies that the duty is on the product, which is the textured yarn, and not on the person or entity manufacturing it. The court emphasizes that the duty on textured yarn should be consistent, regardless of whether it is manufactured by the base yarn manufacturer or a processor like the petitioners. Additionally, the court addresses the concern raised by the petitioners regarding potential double taxation if duty is imposed on both the base yarn and the texturised yarn. The government has issued a notification allowing for a rebate on the duty paid on the base yarn when duty is paid on the texturised yarn, ensuring that double taxation is avoided. The court upholds this mechanism as a way to maintain uniformity in duty imposition on textured yarn. In conclusion, the court dismisses the writ petition, upholding the imposition of excise duty on processors of base yarn obtaining texturised yarn. The judgment emphasizes that the duty is on the product itself and not on the individual or entity processing the yarn, ensuring consistency in duty imposition on textured yarn.
|
