9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - In all these four appeals the issue involved is regarding the dutiability and the rate applicable, in respect of the yarn falling under Tariff Heading 18-III of the Central Excise Tariff prior to 28-8-1985. The case of the Revenue is that the single yarn which was captively used for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Rules, the duty is payable only at the time of clearance of the goods, therefore, the appellants were liable to pay the duty at the rate as applicable when they cleared the yarn in the form of doubled/multifolded yarn. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on CCE, Bombay v. Polyset Corporation - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 41 (S.C.) = 2000 (36) RLT 370 (SC) and Tungbhadra Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent multifolding of that yarn being not a process of manufacture, is quite immaterial. In this context, reference may be made to the Apex Court judgment in CCE v. Banswara Syntex Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 645 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has ruled that doubling or multifolding of the single yarn does not bring into existence a new excisable product and no duty is leviable at this stage. To t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by both the authorities below in this regard is perfectly legal and deserves no interference by the Tribunal. 5A. The ratio of the law laid down in the cases referred by the learned counsel is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. In CCE Bombay v. Polyset Corporation, (supra) it has been only observed that the goods are excisable provided the same are exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
