Cess on captive input goods and distinct final products does not breach the statutory duty ceiling under industrial law.

Cess could be levied on jute yarn captively consumed within the same factory for manufacture of jute fabrics, as the point had already been decided against the assessees in an earlier Supreme Court decision. Under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the statutory ceiling applies to the duty on each goods produced, not to a combined duty burden on an intermediate product and the final product merely because one is used in making the other. As jute yarn and jute fabrics are distinct goods, the cess on yarn did not count toward a cumulative ceiling on fabrics, and the challenge to the levy failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cess could be levied on jute yarn captively consumed in the same factory for manufacture of jute fabrics; and (ii) whether levy of cess on both jute yarn and the jute fabrics manufactured therefrom breached the ceiling under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether cess could be levied on jute yarn captively consumed in the same factory for manufacture of jute fabrics.

Analysis: The first issue was treated as concluded against the appellants by an earlier decision of the Court covering the same point.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether levy of cess on both jute yarn and the jute fabrics manufactured therefrom breached the ceiling under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.

Analysis: Under Section 9(1), the relevant limit is the rate of duty on the goods manufactured or produced in the specified industry. The ceiling is not tested by aggregating the duty on an intermediate product with the duty on the final product merely because the intermediate product is used in making the final product. Since jute yarn and jute fabrics are distinct goods, the duty on yarn used to make fabrics does not count toward a cumulative ceiling on the fabrics.

Conclusion: The contention that the cess levy was illegal for exceeding the statutory ceiling was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory challenge to the cess levy failed and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the prescribed ceiling applies to the duty on each goods produced, and not to the cumulative duty burden arising from input goods used in manufacturing another distinct product.

---