2000 (12) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., filed by M/s. J.C.T. Ltd. is whether refund of excise duty paid by them is admissible to them. 2. Shri K.K. Maheshwari, Deputy Manager, Commercial, submitted that the appellant manufacture cotton yarn and cotton fabrics; that no duty is leviable on woven cotton fabrics when not subjected to any process as per Notification No. 25/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995; that the Superintendent directed them ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not having engraved bowls does not amount to manufacture. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1989 (40) E.L.T. 218 (S.C.) wherein it was held that fabrics continue to be unprocessed (grey) even after calendering and shearing. The learned representative of the appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Siddeshwari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He also mentioned that the claiment of refund of duty has to produce the duty paying document so that necessary endorsement of refund can be made thereon. He finally submitted that it is also to be seen as to whether the principle of unjust enrichment applies to the refund of duty in the present case. 4. I have considered the submission of both the sides. Note 3 to Chapter 52 specified certai....