MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Appeals filed by the same textile company against the common order of the learned single judge dated 11-1-199 3 , arise under the following circumstances. The appellant-company is a composite Textile Mill having both spinning and weaving activities at Madurai . One of the items manufactured by them is Cotton Yarn. Some reputed tyre manufacturers placed demands on the appellant-company to make Tyre Cord Warp sheet for the use of the manufacture of tyres. The appellant-company supplies such customers the required goods in parallel loosely held together by cotton yarn. This arrangement of Rayon or Nylon yarns intercepted by cotton yarn to hold them together, is called `tyre Cord Warp Sheet'. The question involved in these writ appeals is whether such warp sheet can be classified as Fabric or should be classified only as yarn. If it is Fabric, it will come under Tariff item 22 and if it is yarn, it will come under Tariff Item 18. So far as the appellants are concerned, the said goods supplied by the appellant-company to their customers, had been classified in the books of the respondents under tariff Items 19 or 22. Based on certain decision of the Calcutta High Court relating to the very same company but in respect of a factory at Calcutta , the appellant sought to get approval for classification of the items under tariff Item 18 as Yarn. Correspondence was exchanged between the parties and ultimately, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Madurai City Range ,Madurai , passed an order on 25-8-1983 in O. C. No. 1070/83 in the following terms. "in case you start clearing tyre cord warp sheets as yarn from 1-9-1983 as envisaged in para 2 of your letter dated 1-8-1983, without getting the classification lists approved by the competent authority reclassifying tyre cord warp sheet as Yarn, appropriate action under the central Excise Law will have to be initiated and enforced".

(2.) THE above attitude of the respondents gave rise to the appellant filing five writ petitions as follows : W. P. No. 4590/84 was for the issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the excise duty said to have been illegally collected from them under Tariff Item 22. W. P. No. 4591/84 is to quash the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise dated 25-8-1983 and to direct the respondents to accord approval to the classification as sought for by them. W. P. No. 4619/84 is to quash the proceedings of the Assistant Collector of central Excise dated 26-3-1984 holding that the Dipped man-made fabric shall be classified under Tariff Item 22 (3) instead of under Tariff Item 22 (1) (b) and staying further action in view of the pendency of certain writ proceedings. THE appellant has sought for further direction in the said writ petition to finalise the classification under Tariff Item 22 (1) (b ). In W. P. No. 9016/84, the appellant-company sought for direction to the respondents to refund the excise duty collected in respect of Dipped fabric and warp sheet under Tariff item 22 (1) (b ). In W. P. No. 9017/84, the appellant sought for a declaration to declare the proper classification for Dipped fabric and warp sheet under Tariff item 22 (1) (a ).

(3.) IN this view of the matter, we set aside the findings of the learned single Judge and leave the entire question open for consideration by the proper officer to go into the question under Rule 173b (4 ). It is in the interests of the Department that the order is passed at an early date so that the future collection of excise duty will not be affected. The writ Appeals are disposed of in the above manner. There is no order as to costs. .