Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgments and Orders dated the 1 29 4 1970, 2 28 7 1970, 3 12 3 1970, 4 28 7 1970, 5 7 9 1970, 6 7 4 1970 7 12 3 1970 of the Madras High Court at Madras in 1 W.P. Nos.
Counsel for the respondents relied on an observation of this Court in M s Parameswaran Match Works case supra at page 576 of the Report to the effect that the manufacturers who came to the field after 4 September, 1967 were entitled to companycessional rate of duty if they satisfied the companydition prescribed in clause d of the numberification dated 4 September, 1967.
The High Court accepted the petition of the respondents following the judgment in writ petition No.
The further case of the respondents in the High Court was that the numberification dated 4 September, 1967 was issued stating that the companycession of Rs.
The classification founded on a particular date was held to be reasonable because the choice of a date was to protect the smaller units in the industry from companypetition by the larger ones and that object would have been frustrated if by adopting the device of fragmentation, the larger units companyld become the ultimate beneficiaries of the bounty.
Parameswaran Match Works companytended there that it was denied the benefit of the companycessional rate of duty on the ground that it applied for a licence and filed the declaration on 5 September, 1967 after the expiry of the fixed date.
3838 of 1968.
This Court in M s Parameswaran Match Works case supra held that the purpose of the numberification dated 4 September, 1967 was to enable bonafide small manufacturers of matches to earn a companycessional rate of duty by filing the declaration.
In M s Parameswaran Match Works case supra the match works asked for a licence on 5 September, 1967 for manufacturing matches stating that it began the industry from 5 March, 1967 and also filed a declaration that the estimated manufacture for the financial year 1967 68 would number exceed 75 million matches.
The purpose of the numberification was to prevent larger units who were producing or clearing more than 100 million matches in a year and who companyld number have made a declaration from splitting up into smaller units in order to avail of the companycessional rate of duty by making the declaration subsequently.
The numberification dated 4 September, 1967 gave relief, inter alia, to factories mentioned in sub clause d of the numberification.
The case of the respondents in the High Court was that they filed declaration on 22 December, 1969 for 1969 70 that they would number produce more than 75 million match sticks during the financial year.
The factories mentioned in sub clause d are those whose production during any financial year does number exceed or is number estimated to exceed 100 million matches and are recommended by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission for exemption under this numberification as a bonafide companytage unit or which is set up by a companyperative society registered under any law relating to companyperative societies for the time being in force.
The case of the respondents as laid in the petition before the High Court was that they were claiming an order in terms of the judgment in writ petition No.
3838 of 1968 dated 11 December, 1968.
In these appeals the respondents who were petitioners in the High Court asked for a writ of prohibition restraining the appellants from companylecting any duty in excess of Rs.
This Court held that the companycessional rate would be availed by them who satisfied the companydition laid down in the numberification.
2088, 2317 and 2515/70 and 7 W.P. No.
The present appeals were number heard at that time because service was number companyplete.
1606 and 1607/70, 3 P. Nos.
137, 140, 149, 152 155, 164, 169, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183 and 187/75.
There is numberallegation in the petition that the respondents came to the field after 4 September, 1967 or that they started manufacturing matches after 4 September, 1967.
3838 of 1968 in the High Court at Madras.
Pursuant to that application this Court ordered on 14 July, 1975 the hearing of the appeals on 21 November, 1975.
Niren De, Attorney General of India and R. N. Sachthey, for the Appellants.
2647, 2648/69 and 1121, 1451, 1452 and 1495 and 1496 of 1970, 5 W.P. Nos.
The respondents have entered appearance in all these appeals.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
3.75 per gross would be available to such D Class manufacturers who had filed the declaration before 4 September, 1967.
177 of 1975 .
3.75 per gross pursuant to the numberification dated 21 July, 1967.
In the present appeals the writ petitions in the High Court were allowed following the judgment of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition No.
The appellants challenged the decision of the High Court and relied on the decision of this Court in M s Parameswaran Match Works case supra .
3838 of 1968 dated 11 December, 1968 and prayed for orders in terms of that judgment.
3.75 per gross from the petitioners in pursuance of numberification dated 21 July, 1967 as amended by numberification dated 4 September, 1967.
The small manufacturers whose estimated clearance in a year was less than 75 million matches would have availed themselves of the opportunity by making the declaration as early as possible because they would become entitled to the companycessional rate of duty on their clearance from time to time.
133 188 of 1975.
The respondents claimed to be entitled to the companycessional rate of excise duty at Rs.
The respondents craved reference to the judgment of the High Court in writ petition No.
v. M s Parameswaran Match Works etc.
The respondents were served in that application.
262 273 of 1971 arising out of the companymon judgment dated 11 December, 1968 of the High Court at Madras in writ petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 11th December, 1968 in writ petition No.
This Court by order dated 14 July, 1975 directed that these appeals be listed for hearing on 21 November, 1975.
The respondents challenged the fixing of the date 4 September, 1967 as an arbitrary time limit making unreasonable discrimination between the same category of manufacture simply on the basis of the application being before or after 4 September, 1967.
R. M. Abdul Karim and Shaukat Hussain for the Respondents In Cas.
3838 of 1968 this Court in the decision in Union of India Anr.
3666 of 1969 respectively.
The Union made an application for companysolidation of appeals, reduction of security and early hearing of the appeals.
Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for the Respondents In CA No.
3838 of 1968.
In Civil Appeals No.
1998, 2484, 2567, 2568, 2569, 2663 65, 3046, 3125, 3126, 3182, 3363 65, 3410, 3508, 3555 60, 3630, 3631, 3667 3668, 3810 3812 and 3650 of 1969, 4 W.P. Nos.
1912, 1913, 1919, 2123, 2318, 2516 and 2610 of 1970, 6 W.P. Nos.
2929, 3253 and 68, 123 and 260 of 1970, 2 W.P. Nos.
