TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by the CESTAT in the case of G.P.L. Polyfils (2005 (1) TMI 375 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). 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. - There is no doubt that the Tribunal’s decisions have precedential value. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority while not following the said judgement has not quite distinguished the same and such an act (of not following the said order) is not in conformity with the requirement of judicial discipline inasmuch as the distinguishment has to be rational, logical and substantive enough to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no dispute that the impugned goods were manufactured by the appellants from plastic scrap and waste including waste PET bottles. In this regard Section 110 of Finance Act, 2014 is re-produced below : 110. Amendment of notification number GSR 95(E), dated 1st March 2006 issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act. - (1) The notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number GSR 95(E), dated the 1st March, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the first notification) which was superseded vide number GSR 163(E), dated the 17th March 2012 (herein referred to as the second notification), issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, shall, in so far as it relates to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 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. The impugned goods were exempted with effect from 17-3-2012 vide Notification No. 12/2012-C.E., dated 17-3-2012. As regards the period from April 2009 to 28th June 2010, we find that in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. G.P.L. Polyfils Ltd. - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 27 (Tri.), CESTAT held as under : 4. Chapter 54 of the Tariff, relates to man-made Filaments and its Chapter note I defines man-made fibres, as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 authority while not following the said judgement has not quite distinguished the same and such an act (of not following the said order) is not in conformity with the requirement of judicial discipline inasmuch as the distinguishment has to be rational, logical and substantive enough to take away the precedential value of the judgement and the adjudicating authority s attempt at distinguishing the CESTAT order falls abysmally short of that requirement. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
