1983 (10) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Schedule for classification of cotton yarn and staple fibre yarn.
2. Whether twisting and doubling two yarns constitutes a process of manufacture.
3. Determining the classification of the products under Item 18E based on their composition.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision application transferred to the Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of products under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The primary issue was whether cotton yarn and staple fibre yarn, when twisted and doubled together, should be classified under Item 18E. The Appellate Collector had ruled in the affirmative, leading to the appeal. The products in question were five specific sorts of yarn, each made by doubling two yarns with different compositions. The appellants contested that no new goods were manufactured through the twisting process and that the resultant products did not align with the description of Item 18E at the relevant time.

Regarding the change in the description of Item 18E from "Yarns not elsewhere specified" to "non-cellulosic spun yarn," the appellants argued that this change was not considered by the Appellate Collector. They relied on a judgment from the Bombay High Court to support their claim that merely intertwining yarns did not result in a new product. The High Court's decision emphasized the uniqueness of the blending process and the absence of the product in trade circles.

The Department contended that the products fell within the scope of Item 18E as spun yarn, contrasting it with filament yarn. They highlighted that spun yarn consists of smaller lengths of fibers spun together, unlike filament yarn. The Department also pointed out the importance of the fibres contained in the yarn for classification under Item 18E.

The Tribunal considered previous decisions on similar matters and concluded that the process of doubling or twisting two yarns constituted a process of manufacture. They distinguished the case cited by the appellants, emphasizing that the products in question were known in the market, unlike the unique product in the cited case. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the products under Item 18E but directed a reclassification based on the composition of the products. They specified the criteria for classification under different tariff items and ordered consequential relief for the appellants, ensuring no additional duty payment if already paid on constituent yarns.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the Appellate Collector's order, directing the reclassification of the products based on composition and granting relief to the appellants accordingly.