TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. During the course of such manufacture they are doubling and multifolding the yarn. A question has arisen as to the duty if any payable on the waste arising during the process of doubling of yarn. 4. It was their contention that Rules 9 and 49 are relevant in this respect and it would be seen therefrom that a manufactured commodity could be cleared as such or may be captively consumed. 5. A single ply yarn is distinguishable from double ply yarn and the single ply yarn consumed captively is not an in-process material and the process is not continuous. 6. The Tribunal has held in the case of M/s. Aditya Mills, reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1853 that doubling amounted to manufacture and an over-emphasis of explanation under Rule 9 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no change in their specifications or classification. 11. In the case of Aditya Mills, the CEGAT has held that doubling/twisting of two different yarns amounts to manufacture of a new product and therefore this case is distinguishable from the present one in which the same variety is doubled and the resultant yarn was classifiable under the same tariff item. The Appellate Collector has cited explanation below Rules 9 and 49 but according to the respondents the meaning attached by the Appellate Collector to the expression consumption and utilisation is not correct. 12. It was their contention that the context in which these words are used is important as it refers to only those cases where after being subjected to any process the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to be cleared as such. 18. We find that there appears to be more than one schools of thought in this respect within the Tribunal. 19. In the Order No. E/370/90-D, dated 14-6-1990 which was itself based on Order No. 164/87-D, dated 23-2-1987 it was held that single yarn or multifolded yarn or double yarn are different varieties and that they are not different commodities either in the Central Excise Tariff or commercially. Hence the removal of single ply yarn falling under TI 18 for manufacture of double ply yarn of the same variety falling under the same TI is not liable to duty. Whereas in the Order E/396-399/91-D in the case of M/s. Bhilwara Spinners and Mis. Rajasthan Spinning Mills it has been held that yarn is a fully manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided to keep this matter pending awaiting outcome of the reference to Third Member. 22. The Third Member s order is now out; and we have perused this Order E/212/92-D, dated 15-5-1992 in Appeal No. E/2261/91-D. It is observed that in this case Ld. Third Member (Shri P.K. Kapoor) has agreed with the order recorded by Ld. Judicial Member (Shri S.L. Peeran) and held that conversion of single ply yarn into double or multifold yarn does not result into any new product. At the same time he has agreed with Ld. Member, Shri Peeran that the decision in the case of Bhilwara Spinners is distinguishable. That apart, Ld. Member Shri Peeran has observed inter alia that judicial norms require that the matter should have been referred to a Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
