9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. The appellant is aggrieved with OIA No. 150/06, dated 25-5-06 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the OIO demanding Customs duty. The appellants had exported cotton yarn to UAE. The same was returned back for reprocessing them. They had filed re-export bonds under Notification No 158/95-Cus., dated 12-11-95 for reprocessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact and the issue is identical to the one rendered in the case of Indian Rayon Industries as well as in the case of Vidarbha Vineer Industries, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 167 (Bom.). Both the rulings clearly apply to the facts of the case and the very act of subsequent ruling being appealed before the Supreme Court is not a ground to take a different view. 3. Learned DR reiterated the Departmental view. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /96 and therefore this point is not in dispute. We find that the duty has been paid in terms of Notification No. 94/96. Therefore, the ruling of Indian Rayon Industries clearly applies to the facts of the case. The Commissioner was not justified in not following the ratio of the ruling rendered in Indian Rayon Industries. The impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
