VIKRANT TYRES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is a company registered under THE Companies Act. The second petitioner is THE secretary of THE company and a share holder. The petitioner-company manufactures tyres, tubes and flaps in its factory at mysore, which are exigible to excise duty under tariff item No. 16 of THE. I schedule of THE central excise and salt act. ('THE act' for short). The case of THE petitioners is that notification No. 88/1984, dated 6-4-1984 was issued by THE central government in exercise of THE power conferred on it by Rule 8(1) of THE central excise rules ('rules' for short), under which THE petitioner-company is entitled to a concessional rate of excise duty leviable on tyres. For availing THE exemption/concessional rate of duty extended by THE central government, THE manufacturer has to satisfy THE conditions laid down in THE notification. Under notification No. 88/1984 THE petitioner-company is entitled to THE concessional rate of excise duty on tyres manufactured by it for a period of 7 years from THE date of first-clearance of tyres from its factory. In order to avail of THE concession, THE petitioner-company is required to produce a certificate issued by THE development officer of THE directorate general of THE technical development ('dgtd' for short), of THE government of India attached to THE ministry of industries. Prior to THE issue of notification No. 88/1984 THE central government bad issued similar notifications under Rule 8(1) reducing THE excise duty on THE manufacture of tyres, from time to time, as an incentive to manufacture more and more tyres for domestic consumption for which THEre was great scarcity. Such incentive was being extended in several stages - starting from 1-4-1976 and THE earliest of THE notifications issued by THE central government is, notification No. 198/1976, dated 16-6-1976. This was followed by oTHEr notifications issued chronologically: (i) notification No. 142/1978, dated 14-7-1978; (ii) notification No. 107/1981, dated 24-1-1981; (iii) notification No. 268/1982, dated 13-11-1982; and (iv) notification No. 88/1984, dated 6-4-1984. For purposes of this case, it would be sufficient to start with nptification No. 107/1981 under which THE exemption equivalent to 30% of THE sum total of THE value of capital investment was provided. In order to obtain THE exemption, production of a certificate of capital investment on plant and equipment was made a condition precedent. A letter dated 25-1-1982 issued by THE rubber directorate of THE government of India, addressed to THE petitioner-company enclosing a format of a certificate by a chartered accountant, is reproduced below: