2000 (9) TMI 697 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Excisability of polyester sewing thread prepared from duty paid polyester yarn and availability of benefit of Notification No. 35/95.

Analysis:

1. Excisability of Polyester Sewing Thread:
The Assistant Commissioner, through an Order-in-Original, determined the polyester sewing thread as excisable and denied the benefit of Notification No. 35/95 to the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the excisability but remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the entitlement of the notification benefit. The appellants challenged the portion of the order where the Commissioner (Appeals) held the polyester sewing thread as excisable.

2. Contentions of Appellants:
The appellants' counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide specific findings on whether the polyester sewing thread involved a manufacturing process. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., the counsel contended that the Commissioner's observations contradicted the legal precedent. It was emphasized that the matter should be sent back to the Assistant Commissioner for determining if the product is manufactured, considering the relevant chapter notes of the Tariff.

3. Response of SDR:
The SDR did not dispute the appellants' contention regarding the lack of specific findings on the manufacturing process by the Commissioner (Appeals). Instead, the SDR agreed with the appellants' counsel on remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the manufacturing aspect and the benefit of Notification No. 35/95.

4. Judgment and Remand:
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide specific findings on the manufacturing process of the polyester sewing thread or reference relevant Chapter Notes and legal precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the challenged part of the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to determine whether the product is a manufactured one and excisable under the Tariff, in addition to deciding on the benefit of Notification No. 35/95. The appeal of the appellants was allowed through remand for further examination and decision-making.