9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of Central Excise and Customs, Jodhpur. In the first order, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim of the appellant for Rs. 38,763.08 which they had filed before him on the ground that they had paid Central Excise duty by mistake on the stock of 43,773.6 kgs. of yarn lying with them on the mid-night of 14/15-7-1977 which was utilized by them in the manufacture of cotton fabrics on or after 15-7-1977. In the order-in-original No. 4/79, the Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claim of Rs. 76,026.91 filed by the appellant on 87,458.431 kgs. of packed cotton fabrics lying with them on the mid-night of 14/15-5-1977 on the ground that it contained 87,458.431 kgs. of cotton yarn on which they had already paid duty. In the third ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excise had been paid prior to 15-7-1977 had been used, the duty payable on such fabrics would be the appropriate rate of duty specified in Notification No. 226/77-C.E. plus the duty payable on cotton yarn under Notification No. 131/77-C.E., dated 18-7-1977. 5. Appellant s case has been that the effect of Notification No. 226/77-C.E., dated 15-7-1977 is to demand duty on cotton yarn with retrospective effect. In this connection, they relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [1981 E.L.T. 274 (Guj.)]. The Gujarat High Court observed that during the period 15-7-1977, by virtue of Notification No. 132/77, cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cotton fabrics. 7. We have heard Shri P.K. Ram, advocate for the appellants and Shri Balbir Singh, SDR for the department. 8. At the very out-set, the learned advocate submits that the issue is fully covered in favour of the appellants by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -1985 (20) E.L.T. 379. This is not denied by the learned SDR who, however, adds that the department have gone in appeal to the Supreme Court against the orders of the Tribunal. 9. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We have also perused the decision of this Tribunal in Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. Wvg. Co. Ltd. case. This de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
