1991 (8) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the respondents. Heard Counsel. 2. The petitioner No. 1 - M/s. Kusum Engineering Works - is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing various electrical items including switch and fuse units. The manufactured articles are liable to payment of excise duty. The petitioners filed revised classification list on April 1,1989 seeking approval under Heading 8537 of the Sched .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, Division-VI, Bombay, by the impugned show cause notice dated October 17, 1989 called upon the petitioners to show cause why the claim for refund should not be turned down in view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition No. 2204 of 1988 -1988 (38) E.L.T. 37 (Bom.)]. The Department claimed that in view of the decision, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in face of the decisions recorded by this Court, it is improper for the Assistant Collector to serve show cause notice and attempt to deny the refund solely on the ground of the decision in Roplas Case. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that the decision in Roplas case is not a good law. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X