Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (2) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h respondent viz., Reliance Industries Limited is having all the three units i.e., manufacturing of Partially Oriented Polyester Yarn, texturing/Draw Twisting dyeing but all these three manufacturing units are at different places. In the budget proposal of 1997-98, the basic excise duty was fixed at 30% ad valorem on dyed yarn along with 15% additional duty of excise on basic duty which comes to 4.5% and the total comes to 34.5% ad valorem on dyed yarn and whosoever is engaged in Dyeing of Polyester Yarn are supposed to make the payment of excise duty @ 34.5% ad valorem. A number of manufacturing units have made representations to the Government of India regarding the higher rate of excise duty and on 14-4-1997, the Government of India is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his being a hostile discrimination, the impugned notification is liable to be struck down. 2.On behalf of third respondent, an affidavit is filed wherein allegations made in the Special Civil Application are denied. It is submitted by the respondent that in the Union Budget of 1997-98, exemption on Dyed Yarn has been withdrawn, but the industries engaged in the manufacturing of Dyed, Texturised and spun yarn were required to pay Central Excise Basic Duty at the rate of 30% ad valorem plus 15% additional duty, aggregating to 34.50% ad valorem. Subsequently, another notification was issued on 11-4-1997 wherein it is stated that those industries which do not have in-house facilities for production of POY, Texturising/Draw twisting were allow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourth respondent that they have got manufacturing unit of single yarn at its factory situated at Patalganga in the State of Maharashtra, and at Hazira in the State of Gujarat. The single yarn produced in such units are cleared on payment of full applicable duty i.e. 30% basic excise duty and 15% of BED as additional duty of Excise on Textile and Textile Articles, aggregating to 34.5%. The respondent No. 4 has facility of manufacturing textured yarn as well as dyed yarn at its factory at Naroda. The POY received at the said Unit of the 4th respondent is textured and converted into textured yarn and is further cleared for the purpose of dyeing on payment of full appropriate applicable duty. Thereafter, the dyed textured yarn is cleared on pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (ii) It should have been manufactured out of textured or draw-twisted yarn, falling under Chapter 54 on which appropriate duty of excise or additional duty has been paid; and (iii) No credit under Rule 57A or 57-O of the Rules has been availed of in the process of dyeing, printing, bleaching or mercerising in the manufacture of the said yarn. If the dyed yarn is manufactured in a composite unit which undertakes the process of manufacture of the said yarn right from the stage of manufacture of single yarn with the help of a facility including plant and equipment for producing single yarn, such dyed yarn is not entitled to exemption. If the composite unit undertakes all these processes they are not required to pay excise duty for the manufact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ineering and Medicine. Under such circumstances, Supreme Court held that the beneficial treatment meted out to the these colleges alone by the Government was without any rationale basis. We do not think that the facts in the present case are in any way similar. It is also not proved that the 4th respondent is the only Unit having units at different places for the manufacture of POY and for Texturising and Draw twisting yarn. According to the petitioner, there are no other manufacturers having different units carrying on such various manufacturing process. On that count also, the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. 7.Reference was also made by the petitioner's Counsel to the decision rendered in the case reported in 1988 (2) SCC 40 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates