MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :- THEse writ petitions and W.M.P's. coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 22nd day of June, 1999, upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 13-12-1991 and made herein and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relevant to the aforesaid prayer comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N.S. Sivam, Advocate for the petitioner, in all the W.P's and W.M.P's and of Mr. R.M. Kannappa Rajendran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the W.P's and W.M.P's and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following order :- In all these writ petitions, since the parties involved and also the subject matter are one and the same, all these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.

(2.) W.P. Nos. 17458 & 17459/91 have been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents and to quash the show cause notice C.No. V3905/15/68/91-Adjn., dated 1-11-1991 (in W.P. No. 17458/91) and C.No. V3912.31/15/67/91-Adjn., dated 30-10-1991 (in W.P. No. 17459/91) issued by the second respondent. W.P. Nos. 17460/91 has been filed seeking for a writ of Declaration to declare the Chapter Note-6 of the Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act of 1985 as not valid in law and unconstitutional.

(3.) IN W.P. No. 17450/91 for the above said reasons, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of declaration that the Chapter Note 6 of the Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act of 1985 as not valid in law and unconstitutional. Further in these cases it is the contention of the petitioner that without realising that the cepol powder can be used only by making into solution and without making into solution, cepol powder cannot be used as such and the purpose of purchasing the cepol powder will become useless and cepol solution is not a marketable product or available in the market the second respondent has come to the erroneous conclusion that Chapter Note 6(b) empowers him to levy duty on the cepol powder solution. According to them this conclusion is contrary to law, laid down by the Supreme Court of INdia. It is also contended by the petitioners that the interpretation given by the respondents to Chapter Note 6 of the Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985