9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Item No. 18-III(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. On test the non-cellulosic fibre content was found to be more than 1/6th by weight when the non-cellulosic fibre content was calculated on the total fibre content. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that there was no contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the sample was not drawn correctly. He rejected the arguments of the appellants that there was an error on the part of the deciding officer and that their factual records should be accepted. 2. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR is present for the respondents Revenue. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits on the basis of their written submissions. 3. In their written submissions, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not find any merit in the contention that the hearing was not given by the appellate authority before passing the order. 6. On merits, we find that the sample of the yarn had been drawn on 12-3-1982 for chemical test and it was found that non-cellulosic fibre content was more than 1/6th by weight calculated on the total fibre content. As the non-cellulosic fibre content was more than 1/6th, the yarn was clearly classifiable under Item No. 18-III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. From the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), it is seen that the sample was again retested in the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi in the office of Chief Chemist and it was reported that the yarn contained 41.8% of cellul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have not contended that their process of manufacture had undergone a change or that raw material used by them was changed by them during the course of the period involved in these proceedings. 9. As the test results clearly indicated the non-cellulosic fibre content calculated on the total fibre content was more than 1/6th by weight. We consider that the Cellulosic spun yarn in question thus contained more than 1/6th by weight of non-cellulosic fibre calculated on the total fibre content, and was correctly classifiable under the Item No. 18-III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. 10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
