9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t during the period 7-1-1987 to 21-9-1987 the appellants had manufactured and cleared what the officers considered to be special yarn generally called Taspa Yarn of 20 x 30 or 30 x 20 yarn. From 21-9-1987 they had discontinued producing such yarn. The partner of the appellants M.S. Vasania gave a statement saying that Taspa yarn was quite different in appearance from the normal crimped or folded yarn. It had a slub effect. Polyester 30 deniers and nylon 20 deniers yarns were fed together into the machine and the speed of the feed was controlled through devices already attached to their machine as a result of which one yarn was running at lower speed and the other yarn at a higher speed. The Department took the view that Taspa yarn they manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54 CETA and not Chapter 56 thereof. Another decision of the Tribunal relied upon was Final Order No. 272/WZB/C-II, dated 22-1-1998 in the case of Hiten Crimpers v. C.C.E., Vadodara wherein the Tribunal has allowed appeal against the order classifying Taspa Yarn under Heading 56.06 CETA. We have heard Shri K.L. Ramteke ld. DR. 3. We have considered the submissions. In the impugned order the Additional Commissioner has observed that there is a standard process of manufacturing Taspa Yarn. Two yarns are fed into the crimping machine fitted with special devices called tensioner , one yarn is running at higher speed and the other yarn at a lower speed. In the case of yarn running at higher speed it gets folded over itself at periodic interva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder that heading because the Tribunal held that the speciality of its construction will be a sufficient ground to bring the yarn under Heading 56.06 CETA. 5. In the Tribunal decision in the case of Pratik Crimpers supra relied upon by the appellants, the above decision has not been cited. The Tribunal noted the fact that the wording of Heading 56.06 is slightly different from the wording in HSN Explanatory notes and whereas the HSN has limited the scope of special yarn to 3 types, namely, gimped, chenille and loopwale, the CETA entry has a wider ambit covering other special yarn and then illustrating the types of special yarn as named in HSN. In other words, Tribunal observed, for coverage under Heading 56.06 CETA, it is not necessary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not cited before the Tribunal in Garden Silk Mills case. If it had been, the Tribunal observed, the conclusion may have been otherwise. 7. A perusal of the Tribunal decision in the case of Garden Silk Mills however shows that in that decision also the Tribunal has considered the Textile Terms Definitions compiled by Farnfield, that Taspa yarn is not an ordinary, texturised yarn and the Taspa effect comes only when the knops and slubs are deliberately produced in the yarn and concluded that Taspa yarn is a special yarn. The Tribunal ruled out its classification under Chapter 54 and held that it was covered by the special chapter for special yarns which is Chapter 56 CETA. The Tribunal confirmed classification under Heading 56. 06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
