9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Tariff Item 68, whereas the claim of the appellant was under Tariff Item 18. Denying the benefit of retrospective benefit of the amendment to the appellant through the exemption Notification No. 271/86-CE dated 24.4.1986, for the period 1.3.1986 to 23.4.1986 on the assumption that duty was charged @ ₹ 4 per kg on the Nylon Twine yearn manufactured by the appellant prior to 1.3.1986 is without merit and contrary to the facts on record and beyond scope of the show-cause notice and hence cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/164/2011 - A/87535/2018 - Dated:- 3-10-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S.R. Nair, Advocate for Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom them earlier under Tariff Item 68 was refunded. He submits that even otherwise also, the process of converting base yarn into Nylon Twine by the process of twisting/doubling of base yarn does not amount to manufacture as laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Western India Texturising Ltd. Vs. UOI 2002 (146) ELT 268 (Del) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of International Conveyors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad 2003 (161) ELT 1109 (Tri-Del). Also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Garware Nylons Ltd. 1980 (6) ELT 249 (SC) held that Nylon Twine is classifiable under Tariff Item 18 and not 68 of erstwhile First Schedule of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bombay High Court confirming the classification under Tariff Item 18. Consequently, the appellant was sanctioned refund of ₹ 1,66,356/-, and nowhere the said fact was controverted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in this premise, denying the benefit of retrospective benefit of the amendment to the appellant through the exemption Notification No. 271/86-CE dated 24.4.1986, for the period 1.3.1986 to 23.4.1986 on the assumption that duty was charged @ ₹ 4 per kg on the Nylon Twine yearn manufactured by the appellant prior to 1.3.1986 is without merit and contrary to the facts on record and beyond scope of the show-cause notice and hence cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
