TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are not in a position to show the same at this stage. 5. The learned Counsel drew attention to the explanation to 18(iv) CET and stated that the ambit of this entry has been restricted by the explanation and it was their contention that in view of this position, they were classifiable under T.I.68. 6. In response to a further question from the Bench, learned DR stated that Tariff Entry 18(iv) non-cellulosic waste all sorts are excisable items and even if the benefit of explanation was available to the respondents, it would attract duty under T.I. 68 and would not be non-excisable in view of the explanation to Tariff Entry 68 which has been added in 1980 whereas these cases pertain to post 1980 period. 7. The learned Counsel has also drawn attention to heading C.T.H. 56.01/04 to show the distinction under Customs Tariff and the Central Excise Tariff Entry 18 (I). He pointed out that whereas 56.01/04 includes man-made fabrics and waste, the words and waste do not occur in 18(I). It was also contended by him that alternative prayer of the Department in the Memo of Appeal for classifying the goods under 18(I) has no basis because admittedly the materials are non-synthetic was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting entries were 18(iv) and T.I.68. 13. We are, therefore, required to consider the case in the light of the material before us and the proposed tariff entries, and determine the appropriate entry. 14. Before proceeding further in the matter we may also mention that in the Order-in-Original in the finding portion, the learned Asstt. Collector discusses the Tariff Entries 18(iv) and 18(1) and comes to the conclusion that the non-cellulosic fibre waste in question falls under Item No. 18(I) of CET but in the operative portion of the order he suddenly switches on to 18(iv) CET (and rejects the claim). It appears from the above that the decision and the findings were not in harmony. 15. It is also observed that the learned Collector (Appeals) discusses the Tariff Entries 18(I), 18(iv) and 68 and excludes 18(iv) by virtue of the explanation and classifies the material under T.I. 68. 16. Learned Collector relies upon the manufacturing process described by him for showing how and why in his view the matter does not come within 18(iv) by virtue of the explanation. 17. In this connection, we notice that while the Asst. Collector has not mentioned about manufacturing process at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he material could be classified under T.I. 68 even if it did not fall under 18(IV). 23. In the appeal memo this point has been raised but the contention that it would in such a situation fall under 18(I) has been dropped by the Deptt. at the hearing stage and the learned DR has urged that in any eventuality it would attract T.I. 68 and would not be non-excisable in view of the explanation to Tariff Entry 68. 24. We observe in this connection that Central Excise Act covers only goods and products and not wastes generated during the course of production or manufacture of excisable goods except in those cases where by virtue of legal fiction such wastes are deemed to be goods and included in the Tariff. 25. In the instant case, the words cellulosic wastes , all sorts are deemed to be goods by virtue of language of 18(iv) and therefore if the material is found excludable from 18(iv) (by virtue of the explanation), it would attract T.I. 68 (by virtue of the explanation under that item) as rightly contended by the learned S.D.R. 26. We have elaborately dealt with this point because the written submission (as mentioned in the appeal memo) and the oral submissions made before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required under the explanation appended to 18(IV)] as well as during spinning of yarn from virgin fibre. It is next to impossible to ascertain independently whether synthetic waste generated from former or the latter process. When in a factory any product is rejected as Waste , the same falls under the heading of its parent. Such as a cellulosic or non-cellulosic fibre waste/filament yarn waste or a cellulosic spun yarn waste would be classifiable under Item 18 of CET whereas acrylic spun yarn waste would fall under Item 18B of CET 80 so on and so forth." 31. The Assistant Collector s order-in-original had been assailed before the Collector (Appeals), who after giving a careful consideration of the materials on record and submissions of the parties, passed the impugned order by which he had held that the impugned goods are correctly assessable to countervailing duty under Item 68 of the CET. 32. In these appeals, Smt. V. Zutshi argued the case for the Revenue and Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy and Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultants argued for the importers. In these appeals the Revenue have prayed in column (b) that: The classification of the imported waste may be ordered under sub-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or not The learned SDR had fairly conceded the correct position vis-a-vis the prayers in these appeals. We had observed that the facts of both the citations were similar to the appeals in question as had been urged by the consultants. The case was reserved to give our reasoned order. I am unable to agree with the learned Member (T) s observing that the citation of the Bench in Order No. 395 to 459/1986 dated 30-6-1986 is distinguishable. The learned Member (T) has not noted the observation of the judgment of the Bombay High Court (noted supra). I am, therefore, unable to subscribe to the views expressed by the learned Technical Member in his detailed order. I beg to differ from his views, which is not the correct position and I find that there is absolutely no reason for remanding these cases for fresh consideration. 34. I find from the impugned orders that the authorities have noted the bills of entries and details of the goods and also noted the materials on record. The impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is, therefore, maintainable and the citations relied upon by the consultants settle the question in controversy. I do not see any reason to take a different view from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extile operations. Multifilament - Yarn with many continuous filaments or strands. Roving - A continuous slightly twisted strand of fibres produced on a roving frame and from which yarn is spun. Sliver, Carded - A continuous assemblage of a strand of fibres without twist. Spinning - (a) The process of making yarns or cordage from fibres, tow or liquid materials. (b) The formation of a yarn by a combination drawing or drafting and twisting operation applied to prepared fibre masses, such as rovings. (c) The extrusion by pressure through a spinnerette of a liquid or solution into a coagulating medium which produces a solid filament or filaments. (d) The formation of a yarn from filaments by the combination of cutting and breaking, together with drafting and twisting in a single series of operations. Top - An untwisted strand of staple fibre obtained after combing or made direct from man-made fibre tow. Yarn - A continuous strand of textile fibres or filaments with or without twist suitable for plying, knitting, braiding, weaving, or otherwise intertwining to form a textile end-product. Yarn occurs in the following forms: (a) Spun Yarn - A yarn composed of fibres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, CET. On the merits of the dispute, he submitted that the Bombay High Court had ruled out Item 18-I(i) and decided in favour of Item 68, CET, in the process referring to the Tribunal s Order No. 396/84-D dated 17-7-1984 in M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. case. This was followed by a similar judgment of the Bombay High Court in International Electronics Mfg. Co. Others v. Union of India Others -1986 (25) E.L.T. 630 (Bom.) involving a similar issue and in W.P. 1664/86 in the case of Sir Kastur Chand Co. In the latter case, the learned Single Judge s judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in the appeal by the Union of India. Shri Krishnamurthy prayed that for the reasons set out in the order of Learned Member (Judicial) Shri Peeran, these appeals should be dismissed. 40. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Consultant, adopted Shri Krishnamurthy s submissions. 41. In her reply, the learned D.R. submitted that in view of the technical literature now submitted, the case for consideration of Item 18-I(i) could be gone into in remand proceedings. She fairly stated that in the proceedings now before this Third-Member Bench, the merits of Item 18-I(i) could not be gone into. For the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
