2002 (1) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - This appeal from Revenue was argued by Shri Shaikh, DR. The respondent was represented by Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate. 2. The respondents manufactured cotton yarn. Part of the yarn is rewound in other forms such as cone. Part of the yarn is utilised for manufacture of fabrics. The respondents were declaring the value of the yarn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and found that they could not be termed as comparable goods. In doing so, he took note of Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the case reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 844 and also of the Tribunal judgment reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 391. He took note of the Chapter Note (1) to Chapter 52 whereby a deeming provision was made making the various processes such as beaming, sizing etc. of cotton yarn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X