9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he partially oriented yarn is classified under Tariff Item 18-II(i)(a), and after further process of draw texturising is classified under Tariff Item 18-II(i)(b). The Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Limited had availed of provisions of Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules and were permitted to pay the duty at the subsequent point of time, that is after the same is texturised by the petitioners. The finished texturised yarn is chargeable to excise duty at the rate applicable to the base yarn, namely partially oriented yarn plus Rs. 5/- per Kilogram, and that is so provided by exemption notification dated March 1, 1978. The Central Government had issued an exemption Notification bearing No. 28/75 whereunder polyester filament yarn is ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,485.53 was the amount of difference paid in excess in respect of the basic duty with reference to the denier counts. The petitioners therefore sought refund of amount of Rs. 68,69,215.04. The petitioners also sought declaration that the provisions of the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 are unconstitutional. 3. Shri Dalvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that the claim of the petitioner for a declaration that provisions of the Central Excise Laws are unconstitutional no longer survives for consideration in view of catena of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. The learned counsel also contended that the claim of the petitioners for refund of additional excise du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween Rs. 63/- and Rs. 49/- for the period between April 1982 to February 1983 is liable to be refunded by the Department. The respondents though duly served in the year 1983 have not cared to file any return and dispute the claim made by the petitioners. In these circumstances we are unable to find any reason to deprive the petitioners of the claim for refund for Rs. 25,92,485.53 and the details of which are set out at Exhibit 'G' to the Petition. 4. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that in view of enactment of Central Act No. 40/91, which has come into operation from September 20, 1991, even though the application for refund is granted the petitioners are not entitled to seek actual payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
