ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the order, dated 10-7-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein imported a consignment of Thermoplastic Resin – Zy Lei Resin – FE 3071, for which the Bill-of-Entry dated 18-11-1986 was filed. The goods were assessed to duty under Heading 3908.90 and also to additional duty of customs (CVD) at 25% in terms of Notification No. 150/86-Cus. Subsequently they filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,31,555.57 on the ground that CVD is nil in terms of Notification No. 132/86-CE at Sl. No. 11 thereof. The Assistant Collector (Refunds) rejected the claim by his order, dated 8-11-1987 on the ground that Notification No. 132/86 was a conditional Notification which cannot be extended at the post importation stage. The appeal preferred against the Assistant Collector’s order was also challenged before the Collector (Appeals), who allowed the same, leading to the present appeal before us.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, Shri L.N. Murthy, learned DR for the appellant -Collector and Shri Arun Mehta for the respondent submitted that the matter is no more res integra being covered by the decision in the case of Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs, Bombay in Civil Appeal No. 4693-94 (NM) of 1990, decided by the Supreme Court on 19-8-1992 [1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 (S.C.)] (copy furnished), wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that merely because the procedural requirement of following the Chapter X procedure in Central Excise Rules for the purposes of an exemption could not have been followed, it was not lawful to deny the exemption in the case of imported goods. Over-ruling the order of the Tribunal in that case, the Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessees could not get a refund because the procedure of Chapter X of the Rules is incapable of compliance by importers as such. The ratio of this decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case and applying it, we find no substance in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed as also the cross-objection filed by the respondents herein, which is not sustainable as the respondents are not aggrieved by any portion of the impugned order. The appeal and cross-objection are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.