MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in W. P. No. 13572/92 and 14761 of 1992 have sought for writ ofcertiorarito quash the Order No. 52/92 - C. No. V/52/30/7/91, dated August, 1992 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai -I Division, and the Order No. 46/92, dated 25-8-1992 and No. 47/92, dated 27-8-1992 - C. No. V/52. 06/3/74/89-Cell of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tirunelveli respectively. THE petitioner in W. P. No. 13572/92 has filed W. P. No. 9844 of 1993 for writ ofcertiorari, to quash the Order No. VIII/48/4/91/6130, dated 29-3-1993 of the first respondent, i. e. , Assistant Collector of Customs & anti-Smuggling, Tuticorin. THE petitioner in W. P. No. 14761 of 1992 has filed w. P. No. 11129 of 1993 challenging the order No. VIII/48/4/91-DBK, dated 1-6-1993 of the first respondent - Assistant Collector of Customs & anti-Smuggling, Tuticorin with a prayer to quash it.

(2.) IN all these writ petitions, common questions of law arise for consideration of similar facts. Hence they are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) IN the writ petitions, it is contended that the reasoning of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in ordering reclassification is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Statutory instructions of the Government of INdia, and discriminates the petitioner; with the introductions of the Act, the cotton canvass/duck fabrics were classified under the Headings 52. 05 and 52. 06; the classification lists filed by the petitioner were approved during the years 1986 to 1990 by the competent authority. IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has given facts leading to the writ petition and the provisions of law in great details. I do not think it necessary to narrate the facts in detail in the view I am proposing to take in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.