The Collector of Appeals passed orders on 31 8 1982 and 9 8 1985 upholding the appellants claim.
On 20 4 1988, the High Court directed the authorities to deposit the amount of duty companycerned in these matters into that Court and allowed the appellants to withdraw the sum on furnishing bank guarantees.
The said applications were rejected by the Assistant Collector on 29 1 1988 against which the appellants chose to file writ petitions in the High Court in March, 1988.
The writ petitions filed by the appellants came up for final hearing in February, 1996 and have been dismissed following the decisions of this Court in Union of India and Ors.
v. Jain Spinners Limited and Anr.
and Union of India and Ors.
These appeals are preferred against the orders of the High Court of Bombay disposing of the writ petitions filed by the appellants with certain directions.
It appears that numberorder of stay was granted by the Tribunal.
The department did number accept the decision of the Collector of Appeals and preferred appeals before the Tribunal.
The appellants filed application for refund of the duty companysequent upon the aforesaid orders of the Collector Appeals .
There was a dispute with respect to valuation of the goods manufactured by the appellants.
Special leave granted.
They arise in the following circumstances.
v. I.T.C. Limited 1993 Supp 4 SCC 326.
In the light of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries and the format order enclosed herewith , the only order that can be passed is that it shall be open to the appellants to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals within sixty days from today against the order of he Assistant Collector dated 29 1 1988.
Accordingly, it is stated by Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the appellants, that the appellants have withdrawn the said amount on furnishing bank guarantees and that the bank guarantees have been kept alive and are subsisting even today.
On 27 2 1990, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals preferred by the department on the question of valuation.
