Per Shri V.P. Gulati :

This reference application arises out of the order of the Tribunal bearing No. 704/1995 dated 27.11.95. The Tribunal has adopted the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) as set out in para 4 of the order. The learned Collector has held that duty was not demandable in respect of the goods which had been earlier allowed clearance duty free and which permission later on was found to have been erroneously givend was not in order.

2. The learned DR for the department pleaded that the facility under Rule 96D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is available only where fabrics have to be subjected to process as recognised under Central Excise Law. He pleaded that the respondents are laminating non woven fabrics and this is not one of the processes coming under the definition of process as per the chapter notes under chapter 52, 54 and 55. He pleaded that lamination is not set out as one of the process and therefore, permission under Rule 96D is not applicable in respect of these fabrics. He pleaded that since permission was given erroneously earlier which was later withdrawn, the department can raise the demand for the past period of six months from the date of with