TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter Heading 52 was amended in the Finance Bill, 1995. The heading as it stood before and after the amendment read as under :- Heading Before Finance Bill 1995 After Finance Bill, 1995 1. 5201 Waste yarn (Hard Waste) (including garnetted stock) Cotton, not carded or combed. 2. 5202 Cotton carded or combed Cotton waste (including yarn waste and garnetted stock). 3. The appellants are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, out of cotton. Various types of waste items arise in the processing of cotton and manufacture of yarn. Show cause notice dated 7-8-1995 was issued to the appellant as to why duty should not be demanded from them in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and that under that section duties can be levied only in respect of Excisable goods which are produced or manufactured in India. They submit that soft waste arising in the processing of cotton was not excisable as the same was not excisable goods prior to the amendment of Chapter 52 w.e.f. 26th May, 1995. It is their contention that excisable goods, according to the definition in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act means, goods specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as being subject to a duty of excise. They point out that prior to the amendment w.e.f. 26th May, 95 Chapter Heading 5201 covered only waste yarn (hard waste) including garnetted stock . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 12 of the Customs Act. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner passed the order without realising that the occasion for levy of duty arose only if goods specified in the Central Excise Tariff was being manufactured. The Commissioner has given no finding that the soft waste in question was specified in the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff. He, therefore, submitted that the Commissioner committed an error in determining the rate of duty on the goods without first satisfying himself as to whether any duty was leviable. Moreover, the Commissioner was only following the order of the CEGAT in the case of M/s. Winsom Yarns Ltd. Learned Counsel submitted that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Winsome Yarn did not constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute with regard to dutiability of soft waste subsequent to the amendment, its exsiability cannot be questioned for the previous period also. He also submitted that the tariff item 5201 included garnetted stock specifically under the heading waste yarn (hard waste) . He also submitted that garnetted stock arose prior to spinning and as garnetted stock found specific mention in the tariff heading, cotton waste of all kinds were excisable under that heading. He also referred to the following definition of garnetted stock in Fair Child's Dictionary of Textile Terms :- Garnetted Stock - The fiber recovered by garnetting waste, rags and clippings of wool, cotton, rayon and other man-made fibers, etc. 7. The learned DR further argued tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion for decision is whether the soft waste in question was covered by this entry. It is clear from the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner that waste in question which was held to be not excisable by him consisted of flat waste, comber noils, dropping and sweeping waste of cotton which are soft waste. There is no mention of garnetted stock among the goods. Therefore, the dispute is with regard to the scope of the tariff entry excluding garnetted stock. Thus, the entry for consideration is only waste yarn (hard waste) . There is no dispute at all that the waste in question was not waste yarn. Admittedly, the waste arose prior to spinning of yarn, at the stage of cleaning and processing of cotton. In these circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the present dispute. 9. In view of the facts and legal position stated above, we uphold the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order-in-original that soft waste of cotton was not leviable to Central Excise duty prior to the amendment of Chapter 52 w.e.f. 26th May, 1995, as soft waste was not excisable goods i.e. goods specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act prior to the amendment. The reference is, thus, answered in favour of the assessee. Further, in the light of our decision on the reference, that cotton soft waste was not liable to Central Excise duty prior to 26th May, 1995, we allow the appeals of the assessee and set aside the contrary order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
