1996 (9) TMI 123 - SUPREME COURT

Whether "Nylon Twine" can be considered as "Nylon Yarn" so as to be covered by Item 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood prior to the Amendment of 1977?

Held that:- The burden of proof is on the taxing authorities to show that the particular case or item in question, is taxable in the manner claimed by them. Mare assertion in that regard is of no avail. It has been held by this Court that there should be material to enter appropriate finding in that regard and the material may be either oral or documentary. It is for the taxing authority to lay evidence in that behalf even before the first adjudicating authority. Especially in a case as this, where the claim of the assessee is borne out by the trade inquiries received by them and also the affidavits filed by persons dealing with the subject matter, a heavy burden lay upon the revenue to disprove the said materials by adducing proper evidence. Unfortunately, no such attempt was made. As stated, the evidence led in this case conclusively goes to show that Nylon Twine manufactured by the assessees has been treated as a kind of Nylon Yarn by the people conversant with the trade. It is commonly considered as Nylon Yarn. Hence, it is to be classified under Item 18 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.