1999 (9) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1994, there was no exemption Notification in respect of exemption for doubled/multifolded yarn and hence the duty for this period was required to have discharged by the appellants. 2. At the stay stage, the arguments with regard to retrospective nature of Notification No. 90/94-CE was considered and prima facie, on that plea partial waiver was granted and the appellants had pre-deposited Rs. 15 lacs in terms of the stay order No. 25/99, dated 7-1-1999. Thereafter, the appellant prayed for early hearing of the appeal, which was considered in view of the plea that the matter was covered by the subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court holding that the process of doubling or multifolding yarn of duty paid single yarn does not amount to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.), wherein the matter was still further clarified that except indicating the process of preparing multifold yarn needed for the manufacturer of felts the Revenue had not placed any material on record to hold that the multifold was a distinct article having an identity of its own in the commercial world nor was any evidence led to show that it had marketability, however, limited it may be. Admittedly, even according to the Revenue the manufacture of felts was a monopoly items and the process of manufacture was to use cotton and nylon strands folded together and thereafter process the multifold yarn in the manufacture of felts. Every change does not necessarily fall within the expression 'manufacture' unless it i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on No. 90/94-CE. 8. The learned D.R. submits that although before the Hon'ble Apex Court the revenue had not produced any evidence, still it is open to the revenue to take up the matter in this case, as in this appeal the plea had not been raised before the authorities. He submits that the matter could be remanded to the authorities concerned to consider the aspect pertaining to marketability of the item. He further submits that the Notification No. 90/94-CE does not have retrospective effect, therefore, the levy of duty for the interim period is justified. 9. On a careful consideration of the submissions on both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the Hon'ble Apex Court has already decided the issue about the item ....