ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the cabled yarn, and the issue for consideration is whether the cabled yarn was covered by the description of doubled/multifolded yarn for exemption under Notification No. 53/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and its predecessor Notification No. 53/87, dated 1-3-1987 and Notification No. 47/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. It was only under amending Notification No. 23/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 that cabled yarn was added for exemption under Notification No. 53/91-C.E. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 26-7-1994 that the appellants by wilful suppression had during the period 1-7-1989 to 28-2-1992 wrongly availed of the exemption by misdeclaring the cabled yarn as doubled/multifolded yarn and thus, evaded the payment of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,46,122.70. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, who under his Order-in-Original dated 21-4-1997 observed that a cabled yarn was a separate and distinct product from the doubled/multifolded yarn. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 48,46,122.70. A penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed. It was also ordered that the appropriate amount of interest as determined under Section 11AB of the Centra1 Excise Act, 1944 was also recoverable from the assessee.
2. The matter was heard on 14-9-1999 when Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that there was no ground to invoke the extended period of limitation in the facts and circumstances of this case. The show cause notice was issued on 26-7-1994 for the period 1-7-1989 to 28-2-1992. The amending notification on whose basis the charge of evasion had been framed was issued on 1-3-1992. He submitted that the amending Notification No. 23/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 was clarificatory in nature and the intention all along was to treat the cabled yarn as included in the described of doubled or multifolded yarn. He further submitted that the matter was covered by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. & Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [1999 (32) RLT 904 (CEGAT).]
3. In reply, Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR submitted that the exemption prior to 1-3-1992 was only in favour of doubled yarn and was not for cabled yarn. The appellants knew that they were producing cabled yarn but did not declare it so. They misdeclared the cabled yarn as a doubled yarn. As the facts were suppressed, extended period of limitation had been rightly invoked. The ld. JDR submitted that the exemption notifications had to be strictly interpreted and there was no scope for any ambiguity. The cabled yarn was not eligible for exemption while unauthorised exemption had been availed of by misdeclaration and suppression of the facts. With regard to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. & Aditya Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E. (supra), the ld. JDR referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes and submitted that the reliance on HSN Explanatory Notes for interpreting the Notification was proper and justified as has been held by the Supreme Court.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that in the case of Bhilwara Spinners’ Ltd. and Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [1999 (32) RLT 904 (CEGAT)], the question for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the exemption given to yarn doubled or multifolded manufactured out of yarn failing under Chapters 52,54 or 55 of the Central Excise Tariff, when appropriate duty of Excise had already been paid on such yarn, will be extended to the cabled yarn manufactured by the appellants in that case. The process of manufacture of the doubled yarn had been given in para 2 of the order. After making a reference to the trade notice from the Bombay Central Excise Collectorate available at Vol. 24 of the E.L.T. at page T-28, the Tribunal had come to a view that the benefit of Notification No. 53/91-C.E. could not be denied to the cabled yarn. We find that this decision has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. Appeal No. E/963/95-D and under Final Order No. 661/99-D, dated 23-7-1999, the Tribunal had held that the benefit of Notification No. 53/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 will be admissible to the appellants.
5. The facts in these decisions are similar to the one that are before us. Following the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal, we allow this appeal filed by M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. The refund if any, will however be subject to the law of unjust enrichment as laid-down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. – 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) and 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.).
6. With these observations, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.