2001 (8) TMI 133 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Recalling of a writ petition order.
2. Classification of tyre warps under excisable items.
3. Maintainability of a writ petition due to participation in earlier proceedings.
4. Application of res judicata principle in subsequent years.
5. Preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition.
6. Quashing of proceedings and issuance of a writ of Certiorari.

Issue 1: Recalling of a writ petition order
The High Court recalled an order dismissing a writ petition as infructuous after finding that the petition had not become infructuous. The application for recalling the order was allowed, and the writ petition was taken up for hearing.

Issue 2: Classification of tyre warps under excisable items
The bone of contention in the writ petition was whether tyre warps should be classified under Item 18 or Item 22 for excise purposes. The petitioner argued that tyre warps should fall under Item 18 based on earlier decisions and the nature of the product. The Court analyzed previous judgments and held that the classification of tyre warps as yarn under Item 18 was settled between the parties and could not be reopened in subsequent years.

Issue 3: Maintainability of a writ petition due to participation in earlier proceedings
One of the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had participated in earlier proceedings and could not pursue a parallel proceeding in the writ jurisdiction. The Court considered the objection but ultimately allowed the writ petition based on the settled classification of tyre warps.

Issue 4: Application of res judicata principle in subsequent years
The Court applied the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that a decision on the character of a product, once determined by a court between the same parties, remains binding in subsequent years. The judgment in a previous case regarding the excisability of tyre warps as yarn under a specific item could not be challenged again.

Issue 5: Preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition
While the respondent raised objections on the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court found that the delay in passing orders and the settled legal position rendered further proceedings infructuous. The Court quashed the proceedings and issued a writ of Certiorari, discharging any bonds or guarantees furnished by the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the proceedings, and issued a writ of Certiorari based on the settled classification of tyre warps under excisable items and the application of the res judicata principle between the parties. The Court rejected the preliminary objections raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the participation in earlier proceedings, emphasizing the binding nature of previous decisions on the classification of the product.