1. The facts of this case in brief are that with effect from 18-6-1977, notification No. 132/77-C.E., fully exempted the yarn used by composite textile mills in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. This notification was withdrawn with effect from 15-7-1977. On the midnight of 14/15-7-1977, the appellant had in stock some loose quantity of cotton yarn as well as some cotton yarn contained in cotton fabrics in stock.
The Department sought to collect duty on these two types of pre-duty stock of yarn in terms of Proviso to notification No. 226/77-C.E., dated 15-7- 1977. This Proviso gave the rate of duty for fabrics in two parts cotton fabric duty plus the yarn duty. The appellants have challenged this saying that the Proviso sought to give retrospective effect to yarn duty which had earlier been exempted by notification No.132/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977.
2. The appellants stated during the hearing that they had two High Court judg- ments in their favour :- (1) 1981 (8) E.L.T. 274 (Gujarat) - Aryodaya Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Ors.
(2) 1982 (10) E.L.T. 457 (Bombay) - Shreeram Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. U.O.I. Ors.
The appellants added that to their knowledge there was no contrary judgment of any other High Court. They stated that recently Delhi High Court had also admitted a writ petition filed by M/s Lakshmi Vishnu Mills and granted interim relief to that party subject to furnishing of bank guarantee. The appellants stated that the above-mentioned judgments of Bombay and Gujarat High Courts were binding till reversed by the Supreme Court, that this Bench should either allo the appeal following those judgments or, in the alternative, at least grant interim relief to the appellants in the same way as given by Delhi High Court to Lakshmi Vishnu Mills.
3. The Department's representative agreed that the above-mentioned two judgments of Gujarat and Bombay High Courts squarely covered the point at issue involved in the present appeal and that there was no contrary judgment of any other High Court. He, however, requested that the present appeal may be adjourned sine die as the Department's appeal against those two judgments was still pending before the Supreme Court.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. Since both sides have agreed that the point at issue involved in the appeal before'us is squarely covered by the aforementioned two judgments of Gujarat and Bombay High Courts and since no contrary judgment has been brought to our notice by either side, we do not consider it necessary to keep the present appeal pending indefinitely. Following the ratio of the Gujarat and Bombay High Court judgments referred to above, we allo this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.