9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the conclusion that the claim of the sub-heading by the appellant as 5205.00, does not attract the goods manufactured by the appellant to its fold. Rather that attracts the sub heading 5205.11. Issue as above was before the Tribunal in the case of Arunachala Gounder Textile Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem (2010 (12) TMI 195 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ). The Tribunal making a th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claimed by the appellant. 2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the process of manufacture was as stated in para 6.1 of the order involved the process as extracted in para 6.2.1 of the said order, reading is under:- The manufacturing process ofr a core spun yarn is in every way similar to that of an ordinary ring spun yarn with a slight change in the ring spinning. In ring spinnin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the core. 3. Analysing the process of manufacture, character and nature as well as the property of the goods, manufactured by appellant the Adjudicating authority thoroughly examined the same in para 6.2.2. Thereafter, he proceeded to examine the intention of both the sub-headings appearing in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Examining the rival entries in para 6.3.1. and 6.3.2 as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
