9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. Against this finding of the learned Collector (Appeals), the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. They do not clear single ply cotton yarn but further process the single ply cotton yarn into double ply cotton yarn and pay duty on double ply cotton yarn. The Department alleged that the process of conversion of single ply cotton yarn into double ply cotton yarn is manufacture and, therefore, the appellants should have paid duty not only on the quantity cleared as double ply cotton yarn but also on the quantity manufactured as single ply cotton yarn. The Assistant Collector, after hearing the submissions of the appellant uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant, therefore, submitted that their case was fully covered by the decisions of the Tribunal. 4. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 52 for classification of products under Chapter Heading 5203, inter alia, describes certain procedures as amounting to manufacture. He submits that the process undertaken by the appellants for conversion of single ply yarn into double ply yarn and for conversion into hanks of the yarn taken from reels amounts to manufacture. He submits that since this conversion amounts to manufacture and as since Central Excise duty is leviable from point to point, the appellant should have paid duty at the single ply stage as well as after convers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch. After considering all the facts and divergent views in different orders of the Tribunal, the Tribunal followed the majority opinion in this matter. Having regard to the fact that the process of doubling or multifolding of single ply yarn of the same type does not amount to manufacture of any other commodity because even after doubling or multifolding it had remained the same yarn whether cotton or cellulosic spun yarn, it cannot therefore, be said that in terms of the Explanation added to Rules 9 and 49 by Notification No. 20/82, dated 20-2-1982 that single yarn has been utilised in the manufacture of another commodity. We also observe that the relevant Tariff Items do not make any such distinction between two varieties of yarn. We the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
