9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal and held that Sutli i. e. Jute Twine was yarn and was taxable under item-55 of the notification dated 7th September, 1981, and not as jute and Hemp goods under item-24 of the said notification. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the dealer-respondent. 3. The dealer deals in Jute Twine popularly known as Sutli. This commodity is manufactured by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mainly used as a string for tying things or sewing bags etc. and was, therefore, not yarn. He placed reliance on my judgment in M/s. Ganga Devi Agencies, Agra v. C. S. T., 1994 UPTC 582, in which it was held that Nylon Monofilament used in the manufacture of shaving brushes was not yarn. It was observed that mere similarity of appearance will not make Monofilament a yarn. On the other hand the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re me to show that these findings are not based on any cogent material. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that Sutli is a yarn is essentially a finding of fact. 5. The next question that arises is whether inspire of Sutli being a yarn it should be taxed under item-24 as it was admittedly made of jute. It has not been disputed by the dealer that Sutli is made of june but its contention has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
