2014 (9) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o 16-3-2012 in terms of which the impugned duty no longer remains leviable and also for the reason that the appellants have already deposited substantial amount of duty and are facing financial crunch. In view of the cited retrospective amendment and with the consent of the ld. A.R., we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeals which were filed by the appellant against the Orders-in-Original No. 50-54/CE/Chd-I/2012, 58/CE/Chd-II/2013, 03-04/CE/Chd-II/2013 confirming duty demand on polyester staple fibre which was cleared by the appellants without payment of duty. The period involved is April, 2009 to 7-5-2012. 2. The impugned demand relates to the polyester staple fibre manufactured from waste polyethylenene terep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)     "2C 54 or 55 (1) Polyester staple fibre or polyester filament yarn manufactured from plastic scrap or plastic waste including waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles. Nil -         (2) Tow manufactured and captively consumed within the factory of its production for the manufacture of goods specified in entry (1) Nil -     4. In view of the aforesaid amendment it is evident that the impugned demand pertaining to the period 29th June 2010 to 16th March 2012 does not survive as the rate of duty on polyester staple fibre obtained from plastic scrap/waste including waste of PET bottles has been made Nil. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Note 1A in Chapter 54 with effect from 29-6-2010. Consequently, for the period up to 28th June 2010 the goods were not liable to Central Excise duty as has been held by the CESTAT in the case of G.P.L. Polyfils (supra). In this regard it is pertinent to note that the C.B.E. & C. vide Circular dated 29-6-2010 stated that the case of G.P.L Polyfils Ltd. would be relevant for the particular facts as in the said case and hence cannot be a binding precedent in other matters. This observation of C.B.E. & C. was struck down by the Delhi High Court vide its decision dated 30-9-2011 in the CWO No. 5454/2010 [2011 (24) S.T.R. 525 (Del.)]. There is no doubt that the Tribunal's decisions have precedential value. It is also seen that the adjudicating ....