Appeals allowed, duty demand set aside due to retrospective amendment. Goods exempted from duty, classification clarified.

The appeals were allowed, and the impugned duty demand on polyester staple fibre was set aside due to the retrospective amendment by Section 110 of Finance Act, 2014, which made the duty no longer leviable for the relevant period. The goods were exempted from duty, and the classification under the Central Excise Tariff was clarified based on precedential value of CESTAT decisions and the requirement of judicial discipline.

---

---

Issues:
1. Early hearing of appeals due to retrospective amendment by Section 110 of Finance Act, 2014.
2. Duty demand on polyester staple fibre manufactured from waste PET bottles.
3. Classification and liability of goods under Central Excise Tariff.
4. Precedential value of CESTAT decisions and judicial discipline.

Issue 1: Early Hearing of Appeals
The appellants filed Misc. applications for early hearing due to the retrospective amendment by Section 110 of Finance Act, 2014, which made the impugned duty no longer leviable for the period 29-6-2010 to 16-3-2012. The appellants had already deposited a substantial amount of duty and were facing financial difficulties. With the consent of the ld. A.R., the requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the appeals against Orders-in-Original confirming duty demand on polyester staple fibre were taken up.

Issue 2: Duty Demand on Polyester Staple Fibre
The impugned demand related to polyester staple fibre manufactured from waste PET bottles. The retrospective amendment under Section 110 of Finance Act, 2014 made the duty demand for the period 29-6-2010 to 16-3-2012 not applicable as the rate of duty on such fibre was made Nil. The impugned goods were exempted from duty with effect from 17-3-2012.

Issue 3: Classification and Liability of Goods
The goods were not classifiable under the Central Excise Tariff up to 28th June 2010, and they were brought under the scope of the tariff with the insertion of Chapter Note 1A in Chapter 54 from 29-6-2010. The CESTAT had previously held that the goods were not liable to Central Excise duty before 28th June 2010. The Tribunal's decisions have precedential value, and the adjudicating authority's failure to follow the CESTAT order was deemed to lack judicial discipline.

Issue 4: Precedential Value of CESTAT Decisions
The C.B.E. & C. had previously stated that the case of G.P.L. Polyfils Ltd. would not be a binding precedent in other matters, but this observation was struck down by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal's decisions were considered to have precedential value, and the adjudicating authority's attempt to distinguish the CESTAT order was found to fall short of the requirement of judicial discipline.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders confirming duty demand on polyester staple fibre were set aside based on the retrospective amendment and the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff.

---