1988 (8) TMI 101 - SC - Central Excise

Yarn - Doubling of yarn dutiable - Interpretation of Statute - Classification of goods - Tariff entry

Summary

Issues:
Classification of PPRF yarn under Central Excise Tariff - Refund claim rejection - Determination of whether PPRF yarn constitutes a new product for excise duty purposes.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Classification List under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, stating their intention to clear PPRF yarn, a combination of Polyester Spun Yarn (PP) and Rayon Filament Yarn (RF). The list was rejected, and the appellant was directed to classify PPRF yarn under Tariff Item 68. The appellant argued that duty had already been paid on the constituent yarns and started clearance under protest. A refund claim for duty paid on PPRF yarn was filed but rejected by the Assistant Collector despite pending representations. The Tribunal held that PPRF yarn was taxable under Tariff Item 68, denying the refund claim.

The central issue was whether the PPRF yarn should be treated as a new product for excise duty purposes. The Court emphasized that excise duty is on manufacture, not sale, and manufacturing occurs when raw materials undergo a change resulting in a distinct commodity. The Court referenced various precedents to define manufacture and new product creation. The Tribunal's decision was supported by its precedent and the Hyderabad Asbestos case, despite a Bombay High Court ruling on intertwined yarn not constituting a new product.

The Court further examined the definition of 'yarn' from dictionaries and legal precedents. It cited the Sarin Textile Mills case, emphasizing that a new product emerges when mixing yarns creates a distinct marketable item. The Tribunal found that PPRF yarn was distinct from its components based on market treatment and evidence, concluding it was a separate item. The Court held that if the Tribunal's classification decision aligns with legal principles and facts, it should not be disturbed on appeal, dismissing the case accordingly.