1989 (10) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri International (Pvt.) Ltd. were licensed for manufacturing of excisable goods. They received processed fabrics from M/s. DIOR International Private Ltd., a sister concern of the petitioner, on payment of Central Excise Duty. Such fabrics used to be converted into various other items, namely, pillow covers, bed sheets, bed covers, table cloth etc. falling under T.I. 68. Cotton doubles bed sheets, cotton single bed sheets, cotton top covers and cotton table linen etc. were also manufactured by the petitioner company. The petitioner submitted a classification list dated 4-4-1984 desiring that the classification of pillow covers and Rajai covers be done under, T.I. 68 and that they be allowed to avail exemption under Notification No. 77/83 da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld the department's case that goods finally manufactured by the petitioner fell under Item 19 by virtue of the fact that they were specifically covered under the definition of cotton fabrics and as such question of any double assessment did not arise in the case. 4. As against the judgment and order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) dated 8-1-1985, the petitioner went up in appeal before the CEGAT, special Bench 'D', New Delhi. The Tribunal by its order dated 22-7-1985 dismissed the appeal holding that there was no merit in the same, as a result whereof the impugned orders were upheld. The Tribunal took the view that the process undertaken by the petitioner should be regarded as manufacture and that they could not lawfully cont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t petition, but a person guilty of laches is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The second ground, which disentitles the petitioner, is that since the tribunal gave a decision classifying the items manufactured by the petitioner by taking all relevant evidence and applying correct principle of law, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot go into the same. The evidence on record established that the petitioner was engaged in manufacture of bed sheets, bed covers, pillow covers, table linen, etc. From the tribunal's judgment, it appeals that there was no dispute about pillow covers. It is so noted in paragraph 2 of its judgment. The dispute is about other items. The department'....