1998 (4) TMI 261 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of blended yarn under Central Excise Tariff

Issue 1: Classification of blended yarn under Central Excise Tariff
The appeal questioned the classification of blended yarn composed of 48% acrylic fibers and 52% viscose fibers under Item No. 18III(i) or Item No. 18III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay classified the yarn under Item No. 18III(ii) due to the presence of acrylic fibers.

Analysis:
The tribunal examined the definition of cellulosic spun yarn under Item No. 18III, which encompassed yarn predominantly made of man-made fibers of cellulosic origin. The yarn was categorized into two groups: (i) without man-made fibers of non-cellulosic origin and (ii) with man-made fibers of non-cellulosic origin. Since acrylic fibers are non-cellulosic, the yarn containing 48% acrylic fibers fell under Item No. 18III(ii) as per the tariff classification.

Issue 2: Applicability of Explanation III under Item No. 18
The appellants referenced Explanation III under Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff, which applies when two or more specified fibers in any yarn are equal in weight. However, in this case, the weights of acrylic and viscose fibers in the yarn were not equal, rendering Explanation III inapplicable.

Analysis:
The tribunal clarified that Explanation III under Item No. 18 did not apply to the blended yarn in question as the weights of acrylic and viscose fibers were unequal. Therefore, the classification based on the presence of non-cellulosic acrylic fibers was upheld.

Issue 3: Precedents and Interpretation of Tariff Entries
The tribunal referred to previous cases like Bengal National Textile Ltd. v. Jt. Secretary and Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise to support their classification decision. These cases highlighted the exclusion of acrylic fibers in specific categories of spun yarn, reinforcing the understanding that acrylic fibers are non-cellulosic and have distinct tariff classifications.

Analysis:
The tribunal distinguished the present case from interpretations under different tariff entries and affirmed the clear classification criteria under Item No. 18III of the Central Excise Tariff. The tribunal found no merit in the appeal based on the established definitions and precedents, ultimately rejecting the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the classification of the blended yarn containing acrylic and viscose fibers under Item No. 18III(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff, emphasizing the non-cellulosic nature of acrylic fibers and the inapplicability of Explanation III due to unequal fiber weights. The decision was supported by relevant precedents and a clear interpretation of tariff entries, leading to the rejection of the appeal.