{"id":163654,"date":"2008-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-02T20:01:32","modified_gmt":"2018-08-02T14:31:32","slug":"shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008<\/div>\n
                                                              1\n\n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR\n  --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n             1. CENTR.EXCISE APPEAL No. 10 of 2005\n\n                            SPBL LTD\n                              V\/S\n                      THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS\n\n             2. CENTR.EXCISE APPEAL No. 7 of 2006\n\n                        SHRIGANESH TEXFAB LTD.\n                              V\/S\n                        UNION OF INDIA & ANR.\n\n\n    Mr. RAMIT MEHTA for Mr. LR MEHTA, for the appellant \/\n    petitioner\n\n    Mr. RISHABH SANCHETI and Mr. VK MATHUR, for the\n    respondent in Appeal No. 10\/2005.\n\n    Mr. VIVEK SHRIMALI for Mr. RAVI BHANSALI for respondent\n    in Appeal No. 7\/2006.\n\n\n    Date of Order : 10.7.2008\n\n\n                     HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.\n          HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J.\n\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                            —–\n<\/p>\n
         These two appeals involve common factual matrix,<\/p>\n
though relate to two different assesses, and have been<\/p>\n
filed against different orders of the learned authorities<\/p>\n
below. However, they have been admitted by framing<\/p>\n
identical questions of law, and do involve common question<\/p>\n
of law, and are, therefore, being decided by this common<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
         For the sake of convenience we take the facts of<\/p>\n
Appeal No. 10\/2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         The facts of the case are, that the assessees are<\/p>\n
process houses, engaged in the manufacturing, and<\/p>\n
processing of man made fabrics, falling under Chapter 54 &<\/p>\n
55 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The assessees were issued<\/p>\n
notices by the Joint Commissioner, as in the opinion of the<\/p>\n
said authority, the assessee has not paid central excise<\/p>\n
duty amounting to Rs. 7,57,266\/- on clearance of 84407.50<\/p>\n
meter of man made fabrics, cleared after 1.3.2001.<\/p>\n
          The necessary allegations were, that prior to<\/p>\n
1.3.2001, the assessee was paying central excise duty on<\/p>\n
the said man made fabric under ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’ in<\/p>\n
accordance with the notifications in force from time to<\/p>\n
time, including the one dated 1.3.2000. Since 1.3.2001 the<\/p>\n
‘Compounded Levy Scheme’ was withdrawn, and duty on<\/p>\n
advalorem basis was levied. On account of this change, the<\/p>\n
assessee declared the stock of finished\/processed man made<\/p>\n
fabrics lying in their factory at 2400 Hrs on 28.2.2001 as<\/p>\n
977737.40 meters, and in addition also submitted, that the<\/p>\n
stock of 84407.50 meters of fabrics, which has been passed<\/p>\n
through the stenters was also lying at open decatising<\/p>\n
machine TMT.KD, zero-zero and folding, machine which was<\/p>\n
taken by the Department as not fully processed, and being
\n                                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
pending for some processes, and not reached to the<\/p>\n
“finished goods stage” (earlier RG-1). It may be observed<\/p>\n
that in the other appeal the figures of the demand of<\/p>\n
excise duty and the figures of the two categories of man<\/p>\n
made fabrics differ otherwise the facts are common.<\/p>\n
According to the Department, during scrutiny of RT-12, it<\/p>\n
was observed, that the assessee had taken the aforesaid<\/p>\n
quantity of 84407.50 meters of fabrics, under the column of<\/p>\n
quantity manufactured, during the month of February, 2001,<\/p>\n
and cleared the said goods without payment of excise duty,<\/p>\n
treating it as manufactured, under the ‘Compounded Levy<\/p>\n
Scheme’ in the month of Feb., 2001, while according to the<\/p>\n
Department the fabrics was still pending for some<\/p>\n
processes, to make it fully processed, and to reach at<\/p>\n
“finished goods stage”, and should not be taken under the<\/p>\n
fabrics manufactured during the month of Feb., 2001, and<\/p>\n
should be taken in production of March, 2001, and on the<\/p>\n
clearance of this fabrics the appropriate amount of duty<\/p>\n
was required to be paid. Accordingly, show cause notice<\/p>\n
dated 19.12.2001 was issued, asking to show cause, as to<\/p>\n
why the Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,57,266\/- should not be<\/p>\n
demanded, and penalty under Rule 173Q read with Rule 25 of<\/p>\n
the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also proposed.<\/p>\n
         The case of the assessee was, that since<\/p>\n
16.12.1998 onwards “the processed textile fabric”<\/p>\n
manufactured was subject to levy of Central Excise duty
\n                                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
under the ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’, to be assessed on the<\/p>\n
basis of number of chambers of Hot Air Stenter, and the<\/p>\n
average value of the processed textile fabric, under the<\/p>\n
“Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual<\/p>\n
Capacity Determination Rules”, which requires certain<\/p>\n
formalities to be completed by manufacturer. Under the said<\/p>\n
Scheme, a textile fabric would be deemed to have been<\/p>\n
manufactured, as soon as it emerges out of stenter machine,<\/p>\n
or any machine whatsoever, which aids to the process of<\/p>\n
heat setting or drying of fabric, and since in the present<\/p>\n
case, admittedly the quantity of processed fabric under<\/p>\n
dispute was entered in RG-1 after passing through the<\/p>\n
stenter, and lying in decatising machine- TMT\/KD, Zero Zero<\/p>\n
& folding machine. Under Annual Capacity Determination<\/p>\n
Rules, duty was paid on the fabric which undergoes the<\/p>\n
process of heat setting or drying of fabric on a Hot Air<\/p>\n
Stenter, and any process undertaken thereafter need not<\/p>\n
found to be the basis of determination of Annual Capacity<\/p>\n
under the Rules. Thus, according to the assessee, the<\/p>\n
quantity of fabric which passed through and processed on<\/p>\n
the stenter machine upto mid night of 28.2.2001, was<\/p>\n
undisputedly covered under the ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’ and<\/p>\n
the duty was deemed to have been paid thereon, as such no<\/p>\n
duty can be claimed on that stock. It was contended, that<\/p>\n
the stock was physically verified on 28.2.2001 at 24.00<\/p>\n
Hrs, and also the two stocks of fabrics, and they had also<\/p>\n
given a letter to the Assistant Commissioner mentioning
\n                                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
that 86341.00 meters of finished goods were lying in their<\/p>\n
process house, for OD\/TMT\/Zero Zero finish\/Folding, and<\/p>\n
this has not been entered in RG-1 on 28.2.2001, but it was<\/p>\n
completed from stentering process, for which duty had<\/p>\n
already been paid under the ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’. It<\/p>\n
was also contended, that of course the goods were entered<\/p>\n
in RG-1 after cut off time, but then, since the duty<\/p>\n
already stood paid under the ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’, duty<\/p>\n
was not payable over again. Obviously levy of penalty was<\/p>\n
also contested. The learned Joint Commissioner by the order<\/p>\n
in original confirmed the demand of excise duty, and<\/p>\n
imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000\/- ( in both the cases ).<\/p>\n
The learned Commissioner posed the question to be<\/p>\n
considered, being, as to whether 84407.50 meters man made<\/p>\n
fabric which was lying unfinished for decatising process<\/p>\n
with the assessee on the midnight of 28.2.2001, can be<\/p>\n
allowed to be cleared at nil rate of duty, by treating that<\/p>\n
the stentering on the said fabric was done on or before<\/p>\n
midnight of 28.2.2001, and then found, that there is no<\/p>\n
dispute, that the aforesaid quantity of fabric had not<\/p>\n
reached at “finished stage”, on which the assessee<\/p>\n
ordinarily clear the fabric from their factory premises<\/p>\n
after processing, and some process on the said unfinished<\/p>\n
fabric i.e. decatising, folding and packing etc. were done<\/p>\n
by the assessee after the midnight of 28.2.2001. Then it<\/p>\n
was found, that decatising process is a steam pressing<\/p>\n
process which is carried out to get better finishing and
\n                                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
shining on the fabric, and it is done on the decatising<\/p>\n
machine, and after decatising the fabric is sent to the<\/p>\n
process of folding and packing, and thereafter the assessee<\/p>\n
take the fabric in the daily production register, as<\/p>\n
‘finished fabric’. With this it was found, that he has no<\/p>\n
doubt to hold, that the said fabric which was lying<\/p>\n
unfinished with the assessee on the midnight of 28.2.2001,<\/p>\n
had reached at the final stage after 1.3.2001 only, and<\/p>\n
therefore the same was to be cleared on payment of duty at<\/p>\n
advalorem rate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Appeal was filed against this order, and the<\/p>\n
learned Commissioner endorsed the finding, by holding, that<\/p>\n
the impugned fabrics had not reached at the final stage,<\/p>\n
and were lying for carrying out certain other processes,<\/p>\n
like decatising, folding and packing etc. at the time when<\/p>\n
the ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’ was withdrawn, and all the<\/p>\n
remaining processes, on the said unfinished fabrics were<\/p>\n
done by the assessee after 1.3.2001, to make the same as<\/p>\n
‘processed textile fabrics’, a finished product.<\/p>\n
          Further appeal was filed before the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal found, that the duty is<\/p>\n
imposed on the processed textile fabrics, and that, unless<\/p>\n
and until all the fabrics is ready after carrying out all<\/p>\n
the required processes, it cannot be regarded as “processed<\/p>\n
textile fabrics”, and that, admittedly the process of
\n                                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
decatising and folding have not been undertaken on the<\/p>\n
fabrics in question by 28.2.2001, the said fabrics cannot<\/p>\n
be said to have suffered the duty under Section 3A of the<\/p>\n
Central Excise Act. Thus, the impugned order was confirmed.<\/p>\n
Of course, the levy of penalty was set aside, on the<\/p>\n
ground, that the issue involved being one of the<\/p>\n
interpretation, no penalty is imposable.<\/p>\n
          The appeals were admitted by framing the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law:-<\/p>\n
         “(i)- Whether in the facts and circumstances of
\n         the case the Duty under Section 3A of the
\n         Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZQ of
\n         the Rules of 1944 was leviable on the duty
\n         payable under Stenters Rules at the stage of
\n         finishing process?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)- Whether change of law w.e.f. 1st March,
\n         2001 brought change in respect of Duty which
\n         became payable and paid until 28th Feb., 2001.?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before<\/p>\n
the learned Joint Commissioner, Commissioner, and the<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal, and also invited our attention to the<\/p>\n
whole process of manufacture. Learned counsel also made<\/p>\n
available for our perusal the Hot Air Stenter Independent<\/p>\n
Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules,<\/p>\n
2000, on account of which, the compounded levy was being<\/p>\n
made.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
         Learned counsel for the Revenue supported the<\/p>\n
impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         We have heard learned counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n
have considered the submissions, and have gone through the<\/p>\n
impugned judgments, so also the relevant provisions of law.<\/p>\n
         According to Rule 2 of the said Rules being Hot<\/p>\n
Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity<\/p>\n
Determination Rules, 2000, hereafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
Rules of 2000, these Rules shall apply to processed textile<\/p>\n
fabrics, falling under heading Nos. 52.07, 52.08, 52.09,<\/p>\n
54.06, 54.07, 55.11, 55.12, 55.13 or 55.14, or processed<\/p>\n
textile fabrics of cotton, or man made fabric, falling<\/p>\n
under heading Nos. or sub-heading Nos. 58.01, 58.02,<\/p>\n
5806.10, 5806.40, 6001.12, 6001.22, 6001.92, 6002.20,<\/p>\n
6002.30, 6002.43, or 6002.93 of the First Schedule to<\/p>\n
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for determining the annual<\/p>\n
capacity, and the average value of production of an<\/p>\n
independent processor, if such textile fabrics are<\/p>\n
manufactured or produced with the aid of a hot air stenter.<\/p>\n
Then, a look at Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules,<\/p>\n
1944, hereafter referred to as the Rules of 1944, shows,<\/p>\n
that according to that provision, an independent processor<\/p>\n
of textile fabrics falling under heading Nos. 52.07, 52.08,<\/p>\n
52.09, 54.06, 54.07, 55.11, 55.12, 55.13 or 55.14, or
\n                                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
processed textile fabrics of cotton or man made fibers,<\/p>\n
falling under heading Nos. or sub-heading Nos. 58.01,<\/p>\n
58.02, 5806.10, 5806.40, 6001.12, 6001.22, 6001.92,<\/p>\n
6002.20, 6002.30, 6002.43, or 6002.93 of the First Schedule<\/p>\n
to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, shall debit an amount<\/p>\n
of duty of Rs. 2.0 lakhs per chamber per month, Rs. 2.5<\/p>\n
lakhs per chamber per month, Rs. 3.0 lakhs per chamber per<\/p>\n
month or Rs. 3.5 lakhs per chamber per month, as the case<\/p>\n
may be, on the annual capacity of production, as determined<\/p>\n
under the said Rules of 2000. According to sub-rule (2) of<\/p>\n
the said Rule, the amount of duty payable under sub-rule<\/p>\n
(1) shall be debited by the independent processor in the<\/p>\n
account, current maintained by him under Sub-rule (1) of<\/p>\n
Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Then, as per<\/p>\n
sub-rule (3) Fifty per cent of the amount of duty payable<\/p>\n
for a calendar month under sub-rule (1) shall be paid by<\/p>\n
the 15th of the month, and the remaining amount shall be<\/p>\n
paid by the end of that month. Thus, a combined reading of<\/p>\n
Rule 2 of the Rules of 2000, and Rule 96ZQ of the Rules of<\/p>\n
1944, does clearly show, that in cases, where the assessee<\/p>\n
is an independent processor of textile fabric, falling<\/p>\n
under heading Nos. 52.07, 52.08, 52.09, 54.06, 54.07,<\/p>\n
55.11, 55.12, 55.13 or 55.14, or processed textile fabrics<\/p>\n
of cotton or man made fibers, falling under heading Nos. or<\/p>\n
sub-heading Nos. 58.01, 58.02, 5806.10, 5806.40, 6001.12,<\/p>\n
6001.22, 6001.92, 6002.20, 6002.30, 6002.43, or 6002.93 of<\/p>\n
the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was
\n                                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
required to pay excise duty, dependent on its production<\/p>\n
capacity, as assessed under the Rules of 2000, and at the<\/p>\n
rate prescribed under Rule 96ZQ of the Rules of 1944, and<\/p>\n
was to pay duty specified therein; meaning thereby, that if<\/p>\n
the assessee manufactures textile fabric, as falling under<\/p>\n
either of the aforesaid sub headings, its liability arises<\/p>\n
as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            That being the position, and it being the<\/p>\n
fundamental to the provision of Central Excise Act, that<\/p>\n
the liability to pay excise duty arises on the manufacture<\/p>\n
of the commodity concerned, and collection of excise duty,<\/p>\n
on removal of commodity from the premises, is only a matter<\/p>\n
of convenience. Even if the assessee manufactures goods<\/p>\n
leviable excise duty, and they are not removed, still<\/p>\n
liability to pay excise duty, does arise.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In that view of the matter, in this matter it is<\/p>\n
to be seen, as to at what stage can it be said, that the<\/p>\n
assessee manufactured the textile fabric in question, i.e.<\/p>\n
whether the manufacture is complete when all the processes<\/p>\n
including packing are complete, and it is entered in RG-1,<\/p>\n
or in any case it is ready for dispatch, or can it be said<\/p>\n
to have been manufactured at the stage, at which it was<\/p>\n
lying on the cut off time, being 24.00 Hrs of 28.2.2001.<\/p>\n
This is the aspect covered by question no.1, though the<\/p>\n
question as framed is slightly different.
\n                                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
            So far question no.2, as framed, is concerned,<\/p>\n
that, in our view does not arise, as it is nobody’s case,<\/p>\n
that the change of law w.e.f. 1.3.2001, brought any change<\/p>\n
in respect of duty becoming payable and paid till<\/p>\n
28.2.2001. Here the precise question is, as to whether the<\/p>\n
goods can be said to be duty paid under the Rules of 2000,<\/p>\n
or not, because if the goods are found to be duty paid,<\/p>\n
then duty cannot be demanded under the new provisions, and<\/p>\n
the question as to whether the goods were duty paid,<\/p>\n
obviously depends on the answer to question no.1, inasmuch<\/p>\n
as if the goods are found to have been manufactured before<\/p>\n
cut off time, then they deemed to be duty paid, by virtue<\/p>\n
of Rule 96ZQ, and if they are found to be in the process of<\/p>\n
manufacture, which manufacture is complete after cut off<\/p>\n
time, then obviously it cannot be said, that any duty has<\/p>\n
been paid, and obviously the assessee shall be liable to<\/p>\n
pay excise duty on advalorem basis.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         In view of the above, we may refer to relevant<\/p>\n
sub-heading. In the present case the item concerned falls<\/p>\n
under sub-heading no. 55.13, which reads as under:-<\/p>\n
    “—————————————————-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (1)   (2)         (3)                   (4) (5) (6)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    —————————————————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    55.13            Other Woven Fabrics of\n                     synthetic staple fibres\n                                                                 12<\/span>\n\n         5513.10   -Not subjected to any\n                   process                    8%     Nil   -\n                   -Subjected to the process\n                   of bleaching, dyeing,\n                   printing, shrink-proofing,\n                   tentering, heat-setting,\n                   crease-resistant processing\n                   or any other process or any\n                   one or more of these\n                   processes:\n         5513.21   --Bleached woven fabrics   8%      8%   -\n         5513.22   --Dyed woven fabrics       8%      8%   -\n         5513.23   --Printed woven fabrics    8%      8%   -\n         5513.29   --Other woven fabrics      8%      8%   -\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
         Reverting once again to Rule 96ZQ, and Rules of<\/p>\n
2000, it may be noticed, that the sub heading covered is<\/p>\n
55.13 as a whole, and not any sub part thereof.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         In view of the above, a bare reading of Heading<\/p>\n
55.13 shows, that it covers other woven fabrics of<\/p>\n
synthetic staple, and its sub-heading 5513.10 covers fibres<\/p>\n
not subjected to any process, subjected to the process of<\/p>\n
bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrink-proofing, tentering,<\/p>\n
heat-setting, crease-resistant processing, or any other<\/p>\n
process, or any one or more of these processes. Thus, if<\/p>\n
the fabric is subjected to any one or more of these<\/p>\n
processes, it would fall under sub-heading 5513.10.<\/p>\n
          To put it more clearly, or in other words, in<\/p>\n
order to fall under sub-heading 5513.10, it is not<\/p>\n
necessary, that the fabric should have undergone all other<\/p>\n
processes, as assumed to be necessary by the learned
\n                                                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
authorities below. We may also refer to note-4 appearing in<\/p>\n
Chapter-55, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “4. In relation to products of Heading Nos.
\n            55.11, 55.12, 55.13 and 55.14, bleaching,
\n            dyeing, printing, shrink-proofing, tentering,
\n            heat-setting, crease resistant processing or
\n            any other process or any one or more of these
\n            processes shall amount to ‘manufacture’.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Thus, this bare language leaves no manner of<\/p>\n
doubt, or confusion, that if the product covered by heading<\/p>\n
55.13 is subjected to any one or more of the above<\/p>\n
processes, it does amount to manufacture, and the term<\/p>\n
‘manufacture’ does not depend upon all processes being<\/p>\n
complete.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the above, in our view, when the entire<\/p>\n
processes of stentering was already over, and only thing<\/p>\n
remaining to be done was, decatising, folding, and packing,<\/p>\n
that being not the requirement, as a sine qua non, for<\/p>\n
amounting to “manufacture”, it cannot be said, that duty<\/p>\n
did not stand levied on the said stock of 84407.50 mtrs, or<\/p>\n
for that matter 54760.95 mtrs. under the Rules of 2000,<\/p>\n
simply because, decatising, folding, and pressing was yet<\/p>\n
to be done at the cut off date and time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Thus, the question no. 1 as framed is answered in<\/p>\n
favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue, and it is
\n                                                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
held, that the duty, under Section 3A read with Rule 96ZQ<\/p>\n
of the Rules, stood levied under the Rules of 2000, at the<\/p>\n
stage, when one or more processes quoted above were<\/p>\n
completed, and did not stand deferred to await the<\/p>\n
finishing processes, like decatising, folding or packing.<\/p>\n
Thus, we do not find the impugned orders to be sustainable<\/p>\n
at all.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           The net result is, that both the appeals are<\/p>\n
allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the notices<\/p>\n
issued by the learned Joint Commissioner are quashed.<\/p>\n
( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J.             ( N P GUPTA ),J.<\/p>\n
\/Sushil\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ——————————————————– 1. CENTR.EXCISE APPEAL No. 10 of 2005 SPBL LTD V\/S THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2. CENTR.EXCISE APPEAL No. 7 of 2006 SHRIGANESH TEXFAB […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nShriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-02T14:31:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-02T14:31:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2712,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-02T14:31:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-02T14:31:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-02T14:31:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008"},"wordCount":2712,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008","name":"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-02T14:31:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shriganesh-texfab-ltd-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shriganesh Texfab Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}