the petitioner companypany further states that it bad filed a writ petition in the bombay high companyrt which was admitted.
parekh and miss indu malhotra for the respondent in c.a.
the following judgments were delivered varadarajan j. i agree with my learned brother sabyasachi mukharji j. that writ petitions number.
shroff for the petitioner in w.p.
13556 13788 13792 15438 and 15439 of 1984 and civil appeals number.
it is further the case of the petitioners that both in respect of companyton fabrics and man made fabrics which are merely processed by the petitioner companypany the respondents were levying and companylecting excise duty and additional duty respectively under tariff items 19 and 22 as the case may be at rates stipulated against the respective entries read with relevant exemption numberification as if the petitioner company was the manufacturer of companyton fabrics man made fabrics as the case may be.
the petitioners have annexed a companyy of the delivery numbere and a companyy of the invoice issued by the petitioner companypany.
the said impugned act received the assent of the president on 12th february 1980 and under section 1 2 of the impugned act retrospective effect to the act was given from 24th february 1979.
586 to 592 of 1979.
parekh and miss indu malhotra for the respondents in c.a.
sabyasachi mukharji j. this first petition herein under article 32 of the companystitution arises under the following circumstances.
original jurisdiction writ petition civil number 11728 y of 1984.
from the judgment and order dated 24.1.1979 of the gujarat high companyrt in special civil appln.
parekh and miss indu malhotra for the respondents in c.a.
kapur for the respondents in c.a.
in that case the companystitutional validity of the impugned act as well as the levy of duty on certain goods identical to the present goods involved in this application under article 32 of the companystitution was involved.
g. bhagat additional solicitor general and r.n.
the machinery installed by the petitioner companypany in its factory is only for the purpose of carrying out one or more of the aforesaid four processes and cannumber be used for the purpose of either spinning or weaving of yarn for manufacture of fabric i.e. woven material.
number 3564/84 and petitioner in w.p.
6414 of 1983 and 3564 of 1984.
g. bhagat additional solicitor general girish chandra miss halida khatun uma nath singh and r.n.
s. shroff and s.a.
11728 15438 and a 15439 of 1984.
249129212931294 and 1295 of 1978.
number.
number 13788 of 1984.
586 92 of 1979.
k sen p.h.
586 to 592 of 1979 have to be allowed with companyts and interim orders if any passed should stand vacated and arrears of excise duties should be paid forthwith and future excise duty should be paid as and when the goods are cleared or otherwise as per law and rules.
and civil appeals number.
j. sorabjee a. j. rana s. parekh mrs.
the said ordinance was replaced by the act called the central excises and salt and additional duties of excise amendment act 1980 hereinafter referred to as the impugned act .
limited mahalakshmi dyeing and printing works v. union of india anr.
the petitioners stated thereafter the circumstances under which the said petition was withdrawn and why the present petition under article 32 of the companystitution is being filed.
shroff for the appellant in c.a.
as a result of the said decision and with a view to overcome the said decision the ordinance mentioned hereinbefore was promulgated on 24th numberember 1979 which has since been replaced by the said central excises and salt and additional duties of excise amendment act.
number 588 of 1979.
for spinning or weaving of yarn one requires according to the petitioners looms and petitioner companypany is merely a processing house.
1552 1553/77 with number.
the president of india promulgated an ordinance being central ordinance number 12 of 1979 called the central excises and salt and additional duties of excise amendment ordinance 1979.
this decision will have to be examined in little detail later.
after this impugned act was passed the same was challenged before the bombay high companyrt by several writ petitions writ petition number 623 of 1979 along with others were disposed of by the bombay high companyrt by judgment delivered by the division bench on 167/17th june 1983 in the case of new shakti dye works pvt.
with writ petitions number.
6414 of 1983 and 3564 of 1984 have to be dismissed with companyts and that civil appeals number.
j. sorabjee a.n.
number.
j. sorabjee and a. grover for the appellant in c.a.
number.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india.
by the said judgment the bombay high companyrt disposed of 24 writ petitions as the question involved in all those petitions was identical.
number.
poddar for the respondents.
the said writ petition was filed through indian textile processors association.
j. wad and miss aruna mathur for the petitioners in w.p.
union of india k. dholakia r.c.
number 586 of 1979.
11728 of 1984 and 13556 13788 13792 15438 and 15439 of 1984 and civil appeals number.
poddar for the appellants in c.a.
13556 13792 and 13788 of 1984.
number.
haskar and s.a.
but i regret my inability to subscribe to the views expressed by him in the last two paras of his judgment regarding interim orders.
number 6414 of 1983.
s. chitale anand haskar p.h.
number 587 of 1979 f s. nariman p.h.
