9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of rayon yarn. On 14-1-1981, the respondents wrote to the Superintendent of Central Excise stating that the waste collected at the lower as well as the upper godets could not be considered as rayon waste since it did not have any stretch or twist, that the stretch or twist developed only inside the spinning pots and, hence, such waste would not fall under item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). In support of this contention, they relied on the Bombay High Court Judgment dated 30-6-1980 in Century Rayon v. Union of India Ors. (Special Civil Application No. 2672 of 1976). The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Junagadh, passed an order on 26-5-1981 rejecting these contentions and holding that godet waste fell un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court did not think it necessary to go into the details of the manufacturing process and decide whether as contended by the assessee, yarn filament was converted into yarn only at the manufacturing stage at the upper godet stage, or, as contended by the Revenue, even the filament which came to the lower godet must be considered as yarn. The Court came to quash the Assistant Collector s order for the reasons already noted. Therefore, in this judgment, the High Court cannot be said to have adjudicated on what, in its opinion, was the correct classification of the goods. 4. On the other hand, we have the recent judgment of the Bombay-High Court delivered on 3-12-1985 in R.K. Synthetics and Fibres (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as alleged by the Departmental Representative. 6. In the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Hindustan Scientific Glass Fancy Glassware Works, Makhanpur Anr., Order No. 60 to 66/85-D dated 8-2-1985 (cited before us by the Departmental Representative), the issue before the Tribunal was whether broken glass was excisable. The Tribunal found in favour of the Revenue and ruled that it was liable to duty under item No. 68 till 28-2-1979 and as other glass under item 23A(4) with effect from 1-3-1979. We do not quite see the relevance of this decision to the present dispute which centres round the question whether lower godet waste is classified under item 18 which covers man-made fibre and filament yarn. [unlike item 23A(4), CET w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of synthetic waste under 18-I(1), CET in the R.K. Synthetics Fibres Pvt. Ltd. case (supra). The Court specifically considered notification No. 53/72 (under which the present appellant would have as classify the subject product: godet waste) and held that the tariff entry 18 I(1) did not include waste (18-IV was, both sides had agreed, before the Court, not the correct item). The present goods are also godet waste. That the subject godet waste arises in relation to the manufacture of viscose filament yarn and not, as in the R.K. Synthetics Fibres Pvt. Ltd. case, at the fibre stage, should not, in our opinion, make any difference to the applicability of the ratio of the Court s decision. The goods also do not fall under item 18-IV wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
