1995 (8) TMI 173 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the doubling of cotton yarn amounts to manufacture.
2. Whether the doubling of cotton yarn amounts to removal of single ply yarn in terms of the Explanation under Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the doubling of cotton yarn amounts to manufacture:
The Department cited the decision in the case of Aditya Mills Ltd., where the Tribunal held that the process of doubling and twisting two distinct types of yarns resulted in a new product, "fancy yarn," and thus constituted a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, in the present case, only one variety of single yarn falling under one Tariff Item was being doubled, multifolded, or twisted. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the Aditya Mills Ltd. case was distinguishable.

The Tribunal referred to the case of India Jute Co. Ltd., where it was held that "fancy yarn" obtained by twisting cellulosic spun yarn remained classified under the same Tariff Item 18-III and did not constitute a new product. Similarly, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Orissa Weavers Cooperative Spinning Mills, it was held that single yarn and multifold yarn are not different commodities either in the Central Excise Tariff or commercially. Following this rationale, the Tribunal concluded that doubling, twisting, or multifolding of single ply cotton yarn does not amount to manufacture.

In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Banswara Syntex Ltd., the Tribunal held that converting single ply yarn into double or multifold yarn does not result in a new product. The Tribunal noted divergent views within its benches but ultimately followed the majority opinion that such conversion does not constitute manufacture. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the doubling, twisting, or multifolding of single ply cotton yarn does not amount to manufacture.

2. Whether the doubling of cotton yarn amounts to removal of single ply yarn in terms of the Explanation under Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The Tribunal considered whether the manufacture was complete at the single ply yarn stage and whether duty was chargeable at this stage on the quantity of single ply yarn removed for making double/multifolded yarn. The Tribunal referred to the Banswara Syntex Ltd. case, where it was concluded that the process of doubling or multifolding single ply yarn of the same type does not amount to the manufacture of another commodity. Even after doubling or multifolding, the yarn remained the same type, whether cotton or cellulosic spun yarn.

The Tribunal observed that the relevant Tariff Items do not distinguish between different varieties of yarn. Therefore, it held that the doubling or multifolding of yarn of the same type does not amount to the utilization of single ply yarn in the manufacture of another commodity under the Explanation to Rules 9 and 49.

Conclusion:
Having considered the above findings, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, concluding that the doubling, twisting, or multifolding of single ply cotton yarn does not amount to manufacture and does not constitute removal of single ply yarn under Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.