1989 (6) TMI 64 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of excise duty rates on imported partially oriented yarn (POY).
2. Whether the texturising process affects the rate of countervailing duty (CVD) on imported POY.
3. Application of excise duty on texturising process.
4. Refund of excess CVD paid by the petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners imported POY of 115 deniers and argued that the CVD rate should be Rs. 61.25 per kg as per the relevant notification. However, the actual rate imposed was Rs. 78.75 per kg meant for polyester yarn of 75 deniers and above but below 100 deniers. The petitioners contended that the subsequent texturising process to produce yarn of 75 deniers should not affect the CVD rate on the imported POY.

2. The respondents argued that since the petitioners imported the POY for texturising, resulting in yarn of 75 deniers, the CVD should be levied at the rate applicable to texturised yarn of 75 deniers. They claimed that CVD aims to protect domestically manufactured similar goods, which in this case was the texturised yarn of 75 deniers. The petitioners were not charged excise duty on texturising, unlike indigenous manufacturers.

3. The court emphasized that CVD should be levied on goods as imported, which in this case was the POY of 115 deniers. The correct rate of CVD should apply based on the original imported product. The Customs authorities were instructed to apply the provisions as they are, without misapplying them to protect revenue interests. The court highlighted that if excise duty on texturising is applicable, it should be imposed by the Excise authorities, not through an increased CVD rate by Customs.

4. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing a refund of the excess CVD paid. The respondents' request to stay the refund order was denied, as there was no evidence of a seven-judge bench referral on unjust enrichment. The court noted a Division Bench judgment favoring the petitioners on this issue. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the respondents, they can pursue appropriate actions to recover the refund amount from the petitioners. No costs were awarded in the case.