Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (8) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Central Excise Tariff as it stood upto 1-3-1986, and under the Schedule to the CETA 1985, while the period covered in the remaining 2 appeals is post 1-3-1986. The appellants contend that prior to 1-3-1986, the above mentioned two products fell for classification under TI 15A(2) as already held by the Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No. 611/97, dated 25-7-1997, while the classification claimed for the period subsequent to 1-3-1986 is under CET sub-heading 3922.90; on the other hand, it is the contention of the Revenue that prior to 1-3-1986, these products fell for classification under TI 18 and after the introduction of the new Tariff, the products are covered by CET sub-heading 5406.19. 2. We have heard Shri N.C. Jain, lea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the ISI specification IS:1324-1966 wherein the mono filament has been defined as a single filament of sufficient size to function as a yarn in normal textile operations, and submits that the synthetic mono filament which is used by the appellants to manufacture bristles for brushes and fishing lines cannot be woven into fabrics and cannot function as yarn in normal textile operations and hence cannot be considered as synthetic mono filament for the purpose of Chapter 54. He also refers to Note 1 of Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 which stipulates that throughout the Schedule, the expression plastics does not apply to materials regarded as textile materials of Section XI (under which Chapter 54 falls). He further submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and he submits that this would buttress his argument that nylon yarn cannot only be used for making fabric and yarn but also for industrial purposes as mentioned above. He, therefore, urges us to hold that the products are more appropriately covered by TI 18 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Regarding classification under the present Central Excise Tariff, he relies upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 54 which clearly provides that synthetic mono filament of 67 decitex or more and of which no cross sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm are used according to their different characteristics in the manufacture of brushes, fishing lines, etc., and submits that in the absence of any dispute that the products satisfy the de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r articles of plastics ....... other than articles of polyurethane foam. CET sub-heading 5406 covers synthetic monofilament of 60 deniers or more and of which no cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm..... and sub-heading 5406.19 covers monofilament other than of high density polyethylene or polypropylene. There is no dispute that the items in dispute conform to the above description; however, what is disputed is coverage under Chapter 54 which falls under Section XI covering textiles and textile articles. In terms of Note 1 to Chapter 39, the expression plastics will not cover materials regarded as textile materials of Section XI. Therefore, the key question is whether the products in dispute are to be regarded as textile materials. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erstwhile Tariff covered rayon and synthetic fibres and yarn ...... . The Tribunal held that sufficient evidence was brought on record by the appellants to show that their product was known in the trade as nylon brush and not as yarn and further that the product did not conform to the definition of yarn contained in the Glossary of Textile Terms, and hence extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the assessees and set aside classification under TI 18. The earlier decision of the Tribunal is therefore, distinguishable. In the light of the clear language of CET sub-heading 5406.19, and in the light of the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 54, we agree with the learned SDR that the disputed products fall for classification under CET sub-hea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates