9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same into fibres in the Weaving Department of the First petitioners' Mills and is done with a view to providing an earior feed of yarn into the body of the fabric on the looms of the Weaving Department. The advantage of using doubled yarn in the body of the cloth on the looms is that the use of additional shuttles on the looms can be dispensed with. The doubling of yarn does not change the nature or character of the said two types of blended yarn produced by the First petitioners nor does it result in a new or different article from the said two types of yarn. The said doubling process does not cause any transformation of the said two types of yarn into anything else, nor does it result in any new product having a distinctive name, charac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey referred to a judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Union of India and others, reported in 1980 E.L.T. 249 Bom. They also referred to two or three other cases including a Supreme Court case. However, strange are the ways of the excise department and they would not accept the submissions made by the petitioners. 3. Thereafter the department issued three more show cause notices viz. dated April 27/30, 1981, June 3, 1981 and June 20, 1981 and also a further amendment to these notices by further letters dated June 16, 1981 and June 18, 1981 and persisted in their demand that the doubled yarn becomes a new product and, therefore, is liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 18-111(ii) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners must necessarily succeed. 5. Mr. Master pointed out that in the present case the petitioners have not shown any cause nor did they choose to go before the Collector of Central Excise and they have directly filed this petition as against the show cause notices and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. In my view, it is not necessary that the petitioners should have complied with a formal routine process of having been heard by the Collector of Central Excise, when the petitioners had been fully informed of the view of the department, not once but more than once. In these circumstances if the petitioners were to go before the Collector of Central Excise, the result would have been the same and in any event t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
