https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47140 Notification No. 34/97 denying concessional duty to composite units manufacturing dyed yarn from the stage of single yarn was examined under Article 14. The classification was upheld because the exemption scheme treated composite units differently from factories without in-house single-yarn facilities, and that distinction had a rational basis in the production process. The notification also operated within conditions requiring manufacture from duty-paid textured or draw-twisted yarn and the absence of Modvat credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57O. No hostile or arbitrary preference was shown, so the challenge to discrimination failed. en-us Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:53:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47140 Notification No. 34/97 denying concessional duty to composite units manufacturing dyed yarn from the stage of single yarn was examined under Article 14. The classification was upheld because the exemption scheme treated composite units differently from factories without in-house single-yarn facilities, and that distinction had a rational basis in the production process. The notification also operated within conditions requiring manufacture from duty-paid textured or draw-twisted yarn and the absence of Modvat credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57O. No hostile or arbitrary preference was shown, so the challenge to discrimination failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47140