MADHUMILAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two petitions the relief being almost similar and the challenge being made on the common grounds they were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts stated in M. P. No. 730/93 are adumbrated herein.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Madhu Milan Cinema Premises, indore and the petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director. The petitioner No. 1 company owns a factory at Biaora, District Rajgarh wherein spun yarn is manufactured.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner spun yarn is an excisable item and the petitioner No. 1 has a licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 amended as Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It is putforth in the petition that the Central Excise tariffs in the year 1990-91 under chapter 55 related to man made staple fibre. In the writ petition the tariff for years 1990-91 and 1991-92 have been produced. It is pertinent to state here that while reproducing the same the petitioners have also referred to the notification No. 47/90, dated 20-3-1990 and Notification No. 53/91, dated 25-7-1991. For the sake of convenience the manner in which the tables have been produced in the writ petition are reproduced below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_14_MPHT5_2004Html1.htm</FRM>