9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very outset, has furnished a copy of the orders of this Bench No. 132/87, dated 10-2-1987 in Appeal No, E-1654/81-D filed by the same appellants. It is submitted that this order fully covered the issue in favour of the appellants. The learned consultant reiterates the other arguments which were put forward before the lower authority. 4. Responding, Shri K.C. Sachar submits that Order No. 132/87-D on which appellants have relied, follows the ratio of the decision in the case of India Jute Company Ltd. v. Collector OS Central Excise Calcutta [1967(28) E.L.T. 170 (Tribunal) -1987 Vol. 10 ECR 323] and the view taken therein was erroneous. It is submitted that the basic fact is that a process of manufacture has taken place and this has resulted in production of a new product known to the market. As per the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. Others v. Union of India -1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) and Tribunal decision in the Guardian Plasticote Ltd. case 1986 (26) E.L.T. 542, this product, it is submitted, should, therefore, be liable to duty afresh. 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. I have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardian Plasticote case that a process could result in manufacture of a distinct excisable commodity under the same Tariff Item or under the same sub-heading of the Tariff Item and this would not affect its liability to duty again as a new excisable commodity. 7. Again, in the case of Srinlvasa Metal Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur -1987 (30) E.L.T. 578, it was held by this Tribunal, relying on the decision in the Guardian Plasticote case, that if the process of manufacture led to the emergence of a new and distinct commercial product, marketable as such, the new product would invite imposition of duty, even though the item may continue to fall under the same Tariff Item or even same sub-heading of the Tariff Item. 8. On the other hand, I find that in the case of the same appellants, this Tribunal, in their Order No. 132/87-D, dated 10-2-1987, have held that, as decided in another case of India Jute Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta (supra), in a case where several strands of cellulosic spun yarns falling under Tariff Item 18-III CET are twisted to produce what is known as fancy yarn, the resultant fancy yarn would also fall under Tariff Ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal of cones. This view was rejected by the Tribunal and it was held that, as is made clear in Explanation (2) below Item 18 A Central Excise Tariff bobbins, cones and hanks are all various forms of the same commodity, namely cotton yarn. Further, it was held, it was made clear in Explanation II below Item 18-III CET made applicable to Item 18 A by virtue of Explanation (3) thereunder, that cotton yarn includes both single yarn as well as multiple fold yarn. In fact, it was held that single yarn or multiple fold yarn or doubled yarn are only two different varieties of cotton yarn. They are not different commodities either in the Central Excise Tariff or commercially. The stages of bobbins, cones/cheeses, doubling bobbins and hanks were held to be stages in the manufacture of multiple fold yarn. Although, therefore, cotton yarn remained only cotton yarn at different stages of its conversion, till it reached the final form in hanks and there was no transformation from one commodity to another, it was added we find no warrant for taxiang cotton yarn repeatedly because of change in forms within the same factory and under the same Tariff Item 18 A- Cotton yarn, all sorts". 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the production of the final product and not under Tariff Item 68. 15. However it does not follow from this that no further duty would be chargeable on such fancy yarn. Although such fancy yarn continues to fall under Tariff Entry 18-III(i), yet, in view of the emergence of a new product having a distinct market and use, admittedly, manufacture has taken place, attracting further duty under the Central Excise Tariff, in terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Empire Industries (supra) and the Tribunal decision in the case of Guardian Plasticote. 16. I would in this connection also refer to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Srinivasa Metal Industries, Rajahmundry v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur - 1987(30) E.L.T. 578 where the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Empire Industries case and the Tribunal decision in the M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd. case have been fully discussed. 17. Accordingly, I set aside the classification of the impugned product under Central Excise Tariff Entry 68 and hold that the goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 18III(i). 18. I further hold that duty is payable again on the conversion of single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m as the constituent yarns. As was pointed out during the hearing the resultant duty liability would, even if the said conclusion is correct, be nil since the rate of duty is specific and not ad valorem. However, it appears to me that the conclusion regarding fresh duty liability would not be correct. This is for the reason that in the Empire Industries case, as well as the Guardian Plasticote case, the relevant entries were all sorts entries whereas Item 18-III is not one such. If an entry specifically describes several products, each of them would be liable for duty, as and when each of them emerges, though may be one from the other, by the application of a manufacturing process. This is for the reason that each product as described in the entry is specifically dutiable. Similarly if an entry reads all sorts as in the cases cited supra, the result would be that each of the products that emerges, after the application of the manufacturing process, even if it may be to one of the products already falling in the entry, would become liable for duty in the same manner as if each of them had been separately enumerated. Since neither is the case under Item 18-III am of opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
