LAWS(MAD)-2001-1-133

MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. MARITIME COLLECTOR

Decided On January 01, 2001
MADURA COATS LIMITED Appellant
V/S
MARITIME COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. Madura Coats Limited, have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents concerning the orders passed in Original C.No. V/55/18/1/89, dated 28-12-1989 and the order passed in Original C.No. V/55/18/1/89, dated 11-7-1991 and to quash the said orders and to direct the respondents to refund the excise duty of Rs. 6,91,585.59/- and Rs. 49,330.51/- paid by the petitioner company in the following cases. <TAB> ______________________________________________________________ ARE 41 Nos. Date Amount of Excise Duty paid ______________________________________________________________ 44 26-8-1988 Rs. 70,647.56 52 25-9-1988 Rs. 2,03,586.24 58 9-11-1988 Rs. 2,13,765.55 72 8-3-1989 Rs. 2,13,765.55 31 22-11-1989 Rs. 49,330.51 ______________________________________________________________</TAB>

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner mills would submit that the petitioner has got several spinning and weaving mills in the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal and in Tamil Nadu, the Mills are at Madurai, Tuticorin and Ambasamudram; that one of the main merchandise manufactured and marketed by the petitioner company is "Coats Threads", which has universal recognition for its quality and durability; that specification of the threads varies from country to country and the threads manufactured for the Indian market is to the specification No. 60/1 whereas in some other countries the thread specification varies from No. 60/1,60/2 and 60/3; that the threads exported to a particular country must satisfy the specification of such countries; that the threads and yarns are one and the same; that by multi-folding and more twisting, yarns are made into threads; that all over the world, the yarns and threads are treated as one and the same; that in the Central Excise Tariff Act also, the yarn is defined to include threads and no separate excise levy is made on the threads if yarn duty is paid.

(3.) The further contentions of the petitioner are that the petitioner company is a leading exporter of textile articles in India; that to enable the goods manufactured in India to be quoted for competitive prices in the export market, the Government of India have given several incentives and the main concession is the rebate of the excise duty paid on the exported materials and on the input materials used in the manufacture of the exported materials; that export policy of the Government of India assures the incentives given to the exporters; that in the year 1988, the petitioner company exported threads to Indonesia to the specification No. 60/2, under AR 4A Nos. 44, 52, 58 and 72 of 1988-89; that the petitioner company filed Rebate Claim Applications for the refund of excise duty paid on these exports. But the respondents, contrary to the export policy, have refused to pay rebate of the excise duty paid on these export threads; that in 1988, the Ambasamudram Mills of the petitioner, executed the export order of threads to the specification No. 60/2 following the excise proceedings and paying the excise duty; that the yarns of the specification No. 60/1, after multi-folding and twisting to the specification of No. 60/2, were exported to Indonesia; that in the applications for removal of excisable goods for export, Form AR 4A, the excise duty paid on the yarns has been duly mentioned with the endorsement effected by the Excise Officers concerned in AR 4As; that the exported threads has sustained excise duty and the same is liable for the claim of the petitioner.