1995 (5) TMI 235 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the blended yarn in which polypropylene fibre predominates was or was not entitled to benefit under Central Excise Notification No. 322/77-CE, dated December 1, 1977? Held that - Appeal dismissed. It is for the assessee to establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the exemption notification. Since it is a case of exemption from duty, there is no question of any liberal construction to extend the term and the scope of the exemption notification. Such exemption notification must be strictly construed and the assessee should bring himself squarely within the ambit of the notification. No extended meaning can be given to the exempted item to enlarge the scope of exemption granted by the notification.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 332/77-CE regarding exemption for polypropylene spun yarn.
Classification of blended yarn comprising polypropylene and viscose fibers under tariff item 18E.
Scope of exemption notifications issued in 1988 for polypropylene and blended yarns.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by a company against a Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal order regarding the eligibility of blended yarn for exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 332/77-CE. The dispute centered on whether blended yarn with polypropylene fiber predominance qualifies for the exemption. The Tribunal's majority view was that the exemption was limited to pure polypropylene spun yarn and not blended yarn. The company contended that the exemption should apply liberally to include blended yarn where polypropylene predominates in weight. The company manufactured non-cellulosic spun yarn with 52% polypropylene and 48% viscose fibers, falling under tariff item 18E. The company claimed the blended yarn should be considered polypropylene yarn due to polypropylene's predominance. However, the Court held that the exemption was specifically for polypropylene spun yarn under tariff item 18E and did not extend to blended yarns with polypropylene predominance.

The Court rejected the company's argument that the blended yarn should be exempt based on the tariff description of item 18E, emphasizing that the exemption was limited to polypropylene spun yarn. The Court highlighted that the exemption notification did not mention blended yarn with polypropylene predominance. The Court also noted that the company failed to provide evidence that the blended yarn was commercially known as polypropylene yarn. The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the need for the assessee to squarely fit within the exemption's scope without extending its meaning.

The Court referenced a previous judgment to explain the classification of composite yarn under tariff items, emphasizing the importance of the predominant fiber in determining the classification. The Court clarified that the exemption notification only applied to pure polypropylene spun yarn and not blended yarns. The Court also mentioned separate exemption notifications issued in 1980 for polypropylene and blended yarns, further supporting the distinction between the two types of yarn. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the company's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the blended yarn did not qualify for the exemption meant for polypropylene spun yarn.

In conclusion, the Court's decision focused on the specific wording and scope of the exemption notification, emphasizing that the exemption was limited to pure polypropylene spun yarn and did not extend to blended yarns, even if polypropylene predominated in weight. The Court highlighted the importance of strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the need for the assessee to clearly fall within the exemption's parameters.