Excise exemption for domestic manufacture cannot be extended to imported acrylic fibre absent express statutory provision.

Importers of acrylic fibre could not claim an excise exemption intended for domestically manufactured man-made fibres. The court distinguished imported goods from goods manufactured in India and held that a concession framed for domestic production, including the special benefit tied to acrylic fibre made from acrylonitrile produced in India, could not be extended to imports merely on a parity basis. As the exemption notification did not expressly cover imported goods, the customs duty demand was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether importers of acrylic fibre could claim the benefit of an exemption notification issued under the Central Excise Rules so as to obtain the same concessional duty treatment as indigenous manufacturers.

Analysis: The imported consignments were liable to customs duty under Heading 56.01/04 of the Customs Tariff. The exemption notification relied upon was framed for excise duty on man-made fibres manufactured indigenously and granted a special concession where acrylic fibre was manufactured from acrylonitrile produced in India. The Court held that imported goods and goods manufactured in India belong to distinct categories, and a concession designed for domestic manufacture cannot be claimed by an importer on a parity basis merely because the commodity is similar.

Conclusion: The claim for extension of the domestic excise concession to imported acrylic fibre was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the customs duty demand failed, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A concession or exemption granted to domestically manufactured goods under an excise notification cannot, in the absence of express statutory provision, be claimed by importers for imported goods on the ground of parity.

---