JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 24882-24883/2002, 24884-24885/2002 and 1223-1224/2003.

2. All these appeals involve identical issues and are, therefore, disposed of by this judgment which will cover each of the appeals.

3. Appellant in each case questions correctness of the view expressed by Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) in Circular dated 19.10.2000 purporting to clarify that Additional Excise Duty (in short AED ) under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (in short the Additional Excise Act ) would also be leviable on yarns manufactured by 100% Export Oriented Undertakings (in short EOU ) from indigenous raw materials and cleared into Domestic Tariff Area (in short DTA ), in addition to the Basic Excise Duty (in short the BED ) payable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act ). Appellants also questioned legality of the Notifications issued by the Central Excise authorities for payment of AED on yarn cleared in DTA.

4. The appellants are registered as 100% EOUs engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn out of indigenous raw materials attracting BED leviable under Section 3 of the Act and AED leviable under Section 3 of the Additional Excise Act. On the basis of exemptions granted by the Central Government from time to time under Section 5A(1) of the Act, Notification No. 55/91-CE dated 25.7.1991 was made applicable to their cases for the purpose of exemption. Subsequently, Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.97 was issued where certain manufacturers like the present appellants were only granted exemption in excess of the amount equal to the duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of the Act on like goods produced or manufactured in India other than in 100% EOUs or a free trade zone if sold in India. Subsequently, the said Notification was amended by Notifications Nos. 21/97-CE dated 11.4.1997, 7/98-CE dated 2.6.1998 and 11/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000. As a result of these amendments what came to be exempted was the amount in excess of the duties of excise leviable under the Act or under any other law for the time being in force.

5. The question that arises in these appeals is whether by addition of the words "or under any other law for the time being in force" producers or manufacturers other than 100% EOUs incur a liability to pay AED. The Board issued a Circular dated 19.10.2000 clarifying that it is so payable and Notification No. 55/91-CE is no longer of any assistance to the manufacturers like the appellants. The view expressed in this circular was challenged in several Civil Writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that introduction of the words "or any other law for the time being in force" took away exemptions granted to the manufacturers like the appellants under Notification No. 55/91-CE. All the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment which forms the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Board and the High Court failed to notice that the introduction of the words "or any other law for the time being in force" did not in any way affect the exemption flowing from Notification No. 55/91-CE. What the appellants were required to pay was the basic excise duty and AED as their counter parts who were not 100% EOUs were required to pay. That had nothing to do for creating a liability of AED so far as the appellants are concerned.

7. In response, learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the view expressed in the Circular and endorsed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. The basic intention which is clear from a bare reading of a Notification No. 8/97-CE as amended by Notification No.11/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 is that a manufacturer who is 100% EOU is not in more advantageous position vis-a-vis the o