1998 (5) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of blended yarn under sub-heading 5506.21 or 5506.29.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals regarding the classification of blended yarn under sub-heading 5506.21 as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading 5506.29 as classified by the Department. The appellants argued that their product met the conditions specified in Heading 5506.21, with the polyester staple fiber content being more than 40% by weight. They presented test results from their lab and NITRA supporting their claim. However, the Department changed the testing method from dry mass to regain basis, leading to conflicting results. The appellants contested this change, arguing that the dry mass method should be used for calculating fiber content, as per IS specifications and NITRA's recommendation. They also questioned the denial of cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner. The Department, represented by the SDR, relied on the findings of the Addl. Collector and argued that the testing method was properly communicated to the party. They highlighted the provision for retesting if dissatisfied with the results, which was not followed in this case. The key dispute revolved around the appropriate method for determining fiber content in blended yarn.

The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides. It was established that the classification of blended yarn under sub-heading 5506.21 depended on the proportion of staple fiber being more than 40% by weight. The IS specifications allowed for two methods of calculation: dry mass and dry mass with percentage additions for moisture. The appellants' test results using the dry mass method indicated a polyester staple fiber content of over 40% by weight. NITRA supported this approach, emphasizing the importance of using the dry mass basis for testing yarn due to various factors affecting the moisture regain figure. The Tribunal noted that IS Specification 11195-1985 also mandated calculating component percentages on a dry mass basis. Despite the Department's change in testing method and reliance on T.N. No. 98/80, primarily for denier determination, the Tribunal found that the appellants' samples met the requirements of sub-heading 5506.21. Even without considering NITRA's report, the evidence supported the classification under sub-heading 5506.21. Therefore, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the significance of the dry mass method for determining fiber content in blended yarn.