hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 1991 Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd and anr. ... Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Kevie Satelwad i/by Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C. for Petitioners. Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S. Rao and Mrs. S.V. Bharucha for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 05, 2009 P.C. The petitioner had imported fibre glass filter bags. The petitioners thereafter places reliance on the Notification No. 68/89 dated 1.3.1989 on the Sr. No. 19 in respect of the following goods : “Bag Filter with special fabrics to withstand above 200oC temperature and 100 micron or less size particle removal.” In terms of the said notification if such goods were imported to India, the customs duty was as set out in terms of Clause (a) and (b) of the notification. This was subject to the condition that the importer, at the time of clearance produces a certificate from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Department of Chemicals and Petro Chemicals or in th Ministry of Environment and Forest, as the case may be, indicating in each case the quantity of the goods in question as are or will be required for the purpose specified therein. The Petitioner thereafter applied for the said certificate and on various occasions. The Petitioners were informed by communication of 12.9.1990 that the entry at Sr. No. 19 means bag filter house a total equipment and not filter bags which are only component of the said equipment. This was reiterated in communication of 17.12.1990. At the stage of admission, an interim relief was granted in terms of Prayer Clause (c) on the Petitioners’ furnishing to respondents a bond for the disputed duty. A reply has been filed by Mr. M..M. Singh, Jt. Commissioner of Customs in which reply a stand taken by the Exporter has been rejected. It is not necessary for us to go into the applicability of the notification considering what is set out hereinafter. From the notification on the subject matter before the Special Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Carbon and Chemicals India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs, 2004 (176) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-Del.) as also before the CEGAT, New Delhi in Commissioner of Customs, Bombay Vs. Narmada Cement Co. 2002 (149) E.L.T. 879 (Tri.-Del.). The department had moved the Supreme Court against the judgment in the Narmada Cement (supra) which appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In other words, it would be clear that the stand of the department that expression “Fibre filter bags ... means bag filter house a total equipment has been negatived. Considering the above, petition filed by the Petitioner will have to be allowed. Accordingly rule made absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses (a) and (b). The bond furnished by the Petitioner to respondents in terms of the interim order of this court be canceled and returned to the Petitioners. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)