9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e writ petitions filed by them, the contention raised on their behalf is that the blended product does not contain any man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin. Till recently, duty was levied on their product treating it to be covered by Item 18 (III)(i) of the Schedule annexed with the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the classification submitted by them before the Assistant Collector (Central Excise), they had shown their product as that covered by the aforesaid entry, on the ground that it does not contain any man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin. The Assistant Collector (Central Excise), however, passed the impugned order treating the product of the petitioners as falling under Item 18(III)(ii) of the Schedule annexed with the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing in the light of the observations made by him. 3.Similar writ petitions were filed at Jaipur Bench of this Court. One of them being Jaipur Polyspin Ltd. v. Union of India Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2134/83). This writ petition was decided on May 22, 1985 by Agarwal, J. He agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge who decided the writ petitions and passed the order under these appeals. The Union of India went in appeal against the order passed at Jaipur Bench. The appeal was decided on July 29, 1985 by a Division Bench at Jaipur. It is D.B. Special Appeal No. 211 of 1985 (Union of India and Others v. Rajasthan Textile Mills and Others). The learned Judges of the Division Bench agreed with the view taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Assistant Collector. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judges of the Division Bench at Jaipur. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in allowing the writ petitions. 6.The learned Judges of the Division Bench, however, made certain observations to clarify the position. It would be proper to make the same observations here in these appeals. 7.There being no cogent reasons, we decline to interfere with the order dated May 14, 1985 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, apart from the direction given by the learned Single Judge, it is also made clear that whatever bonds, sureties, bank guarantees or cash deposits already made by the respondents for clearing their goods the same sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
