9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that a commercially different commodity that is Sewing Thread came into existence by applying the process of dyeing and rewinding of multifold or cabled yarn. We find that there is no material now before us to arrive at a different conclusion. We also find that the issue of dutiability of Sewing Thread was examined and clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 168/2/96-CX., dated 23-1-1996. The Board clarified that the argument that there was a definition of Sewing Thread for all the headings except Heading No. 55.04 for the tariff is not really relevant so far as the dutiability of Sewing Thread is concerned. The dutiability does not arise by virtue of the fact the definition of Sewing Thread was provided for in certain headings, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs were initiated against the appellant and the Original Authority held the Polyester Sewing Thread made by the appellants as dutiable. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. Aggrieved by the said appellate order, the appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal who vide their final order dated 27-9-2000 remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision. The matter was decided afresh by the Assistant Commissioner. Learned Assistant Commissioner held that Polyester Sewing Thread is not a manufactured product and hence not dutiable up to amendment made in Chapter Note under Chapter 55 in the year 1996. He held that the process of dyeing and winding does not amount to manufacture. The Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for which the yarn cannot be put into. There is no inter-chargeable usage of these two products, namely yarn and thread, and for excise purpose the thread is emerging due to processes which amount to manufacture. 5. Heard both the sides and considered the appeal papers carefully. 6. We find that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) examined the relevant issues. On the point regarding the non-applicability of legal fiction of deemed manufacture as per Chapter Note he correctly held that such deemed fiction will come into picture where the process undertaken by the appellants otherwise would not come under the normal definition of manufacture resulting in the emergence of new commodity. In the present case, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that the process does not amount to manufacture is not clear. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the order-in-original has categorically observed that a commercially different commodity that is Sewing Thread came into existence by applying the process of dyeing and rewinding of multifold or cabled yarn. We find that there is no material now before us to arrive at a different conclusion. We also find that the issue of dutiability of Sewing Thread was examined and clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 168/2/96-CX., dated 23-1-1996. The Board clarified that the argument that there was a definition of Sewing Thread for all the headings except Heading No. 55.04 for the tariff is not really relevant so far as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
