1997 (3) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of yarn under tariff entry 18-III(i) as claimed by the appellants versus classification under 18-III(ii) as per the Department.

The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the yarn manufactured by the appellants should be classified under 18-III(i) as contended by the appellants or under 18-III(ii) as asserted by the Department. The appellants argue that the test results of samples drawn on specific dates cannot be generalized to the entire quantity produced during the period in question. They rely on previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance. On the contrary, the Revenue contends that the results of samples remain applicable until new samples are drawn, citing judgments from the Madras High Court and other cases. The appellants also argue that the Department should have drawn monthly samples for testing, which was not done in this case. They emphasize that the samples drawn on specific dates should not be extrapolated to the entire demand for the period in question.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observes that the Madras High Court has established a precedent that the results of samples remain applicable until new samples are drawn. The relevant tariff entry, 18-III(i), specifies the classification based on the presence or absence of man-made fibers of non-cellulosic origin in the yarn. The samples drawn in this case clearly indicate the presence of such fibers, leading to the classification under 18-III(ii). The Tribunal rejects the appellants' argument that sample results should not be extended to the entire quantity produced during the period. The absence of a request for fresh sample drawing by the appellants and the lack of evidence contradicting the sample results further support the classification under 18-III(ii). The Tribunal upholds the impugned order based on the precedents set by the Madras High Court and dismisses the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of yarn under specific tariff entries based on the presence of man-made fibers of non-cellulosic origin. It emphasizes the applicability of sample results until new samples are drawn, as established by previous legal precedents. The decision underscores the importance of following established legal principles and precedents in determining the classification of goods under relevant tariff entries.