Statutory appellate remedy and textile cess exemption: writ relief failed, and export policy did not create estoppel against the levy.

A statutory appellate remedy against a quasi-judicial assessment of textile cess must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction, and failure to appeal made the challenge untenable. The cess under Section 5A was treated as a levy with the character of a fee, not excise duty for exemption purposes. A 100% Export Oriented Unit therefore could not claim exemption merely because it enjoyed excise-duty relief under export policy, since no exemption notification under the Textile Committee Act had been issued. Promissory estoppel was unavailable because the Government had not promised exemption from textile cess. The demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy against assessment of textile cess under the Act; (ii) whether a 100% Export Oriented Unit was exempt from textile cess levied under Section 5A of the Textile Committee Act, 1963, and whether promissory estoppel could be invoked on the basis of the export-oriented policy and exemption from excise duty.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy against assessment of textile cess under the Act.

Analysis: The assessment of cess under Section 5A was made by the Committee in a quasi-judicial manner, and the statute provided a specific appeal to the Tribunal against such assessment. The petitioner had accepted and paid the cess for several periods without challenging the assessments in appeal, and merely stating that payment was under protest did not dispense with the need to pursue the statutory remedy. In these circumstances, the failure to avail the appellate mechanism was a serious impediment to maintainability.

Conclusion: The challenge in writ jurisdiction was not maintainable on account of the unexhausted statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): whether a 100% Export Oriented Unit was exempt from textile cess levied under Section 5A of the Textile Committee Act, 1963, and whether promissory estoppel could be invoked on the basis of the export-oriented policy and exemption from excise duty.

Analysis: The levy under Section 5A was held to be a cess with the character of a fee, and not excise duty in the sense contemplated by the exemption conditions attached to the EOU permission. The exemption granted to the unit related to excise duty under the customs/excise notifications, while no notification under Section 5E exempting textile cess had been issued. Since the Government had not promised exemption from this cess, the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to defeat the levy. The absence of an exemption notification under the Act was decisive.

Conclusion: A 100% Export Oriented Unit was not exempt from textile cess under Section 5A, and promissory estoppel was unavailable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the demand for textile cess was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a specific appellate remedy against a quasi-judicial assessment, writ relief is ordinarily unavailable if that remedy is not pursued; and a levy described as a duty of excise in the charging provision will not be treated as excise duty for exemption purposes when its true character is a cess and no exemption notification under the enabling provision exists.

---