ORDER

1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 25-2-2002, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Mangal Textile Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India1. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the two orders dated 16-10-2001 and 25-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad, denying to Respondent 1 Company (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") the benefit of special procedure for payment of Central excise viz. the compounded levy scheme, under Rule 96-ZNA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ("the Rules", for short). The issue involved in both the appeals being identical, these are being disposed of by this common order.

2. To appreciate the controversy, a brief reference to the background facts would be necessary. These are: vide Notification No. 16/2001-CE (NT) dated 30-4-2001 a new Section E-XA, titled as "Processed textile fabrics", was inserted in the Rules, containing Rules 96-ZNA to 96-ZND, providing for special procedure for payment of excise duty by an independent textile processor covered under the scheme, subject to the conditions and limitations laid therein. One of the conditions, enumerated in Rule 96-ZNB, is that the original value of the investment in the plant and machinery installed in the factory of the independent textile processor of the said goods, as on 1-3-2001 or on 1-5-2001 whichever is higher, for an existing factory of the independent textile processor or on the date of making the application under Rule 96-ZNA in the case of an independent textile processor commencing production for the first time in a new factory coming into existence after 1-5-2001 shall not exceed three crore rupees, irrespective of whether such plant and machinery is in use or not, or is in working condition or not, and the independent textile processor shall declare the original value of investment in such plant and machinery installed in his factory, on the dates mentioned above, in the prescribed format duly certified by a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant.

3. Accordingly, in order to avail the benefit of the said special procedure, the assessee filed an application with the Commissioner in the prescribed form, declaring a total investment in the plant and machinery as on 1-3-2001 and 1-5-2001 at Rs 2,64,56,076. The requisite certificate by a Chartered Accountant was also submitted.

4. The Commissioner got the application verified through the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, who found that the original value of investment in plant and machinery as on 1-3-2001 was Rs 3,09,63,727. Certain other discrepancies• were also detected in the valuation, report. Finally, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that: (i) since the assessee was having two open air stenters which were being used for heat setting and drying of fabrics, they are excluded from the purview of the special procedure in terms of Explanation II to Rule 96-ZNA, and (ii) the original value of investment by the assessee as on 1-3-2001/1-5-2001 was Rs 3,09,63,727, which was in excess of the specified ceiling limit of three crore rupees. Consequently, the assessee's application was rejected.

5. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner. As stated above, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Revenue, the appellants herein, had failed to displace the opinion of the assessee's Chartered Accountant by bringing on record opinion of another expert. Hence these appeals.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since the issues, subject-matter of the writ petition, not only involved the valuation of plant and machinery, even the question of disclosure or non-inclusion of some of the machines like stenter