2018 (11) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. M-I/ AV/229/2010 dated 17.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of 'Nylon Twine' falling under Chapter sub-heading 5607.90 of Central Excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te for the appellant submits that against the classification proposed by the Department under erstwhile Tariff Item 68, they filed a petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court claiming their classification under Tariff Item 18, which was allowed and duty collected from them earlier under Tariff Item 68 was refunded. He submits that even otherwise also, the process of converting 'base yarn' ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y virtue of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. He has further submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held by observing that prior to 01.03.1986 the effective rate of duty was Rs. 4 per kg. for Nylon Twine meant for fishing net under Tariff Item 18, therefore, the retrospective exemption notification could not be applicable to the appellant. 4. Per c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was under Tariff Item 18. The appellant's Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.4.1988 by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court confirming the classification under Tariff Item 18. Consequently, the appellant was sanctioned refund of Rs. 1,66,356/-, and nowhere the said fact was controverted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in this premise, denying the benefit of retrospective....