TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jeshwara Co.op. Spinning Mills Ltd. (2004 (5) TMI 333 - CESTAT, BANGALORE), wherein it has been held that single ply yarn continue to remain yarn and no new product come to existence and merely because of the process of winding on the cops, the goods do not become different. Alternatively, the appellants claim the benefit of Sl. No. 130 of the Notification No. 5/99 which exempts multiple or cabled yarn manufactured in a factory which does not have the facilities for producing single yarn. We find that the Apex Court in the case of Swastic Rayon Processors (2006 (11) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), has held that twisting and doubling of yarn does not amount to manufacture and the yarn continues to be yarn. As the appellant has received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto with the suppliers during the period 17.10.1999 to 09.03.2000. They were receiving duty paid dyed cotton single yarn and undertaking the process of winding the same after doubling and twisting the yarn and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-CE dated 28.02.1999 vide Sl.No. 137, which exempts yarn subjected to process of winding with or without the aid of power and on which duty has been paid and the process of doubling the yarn is undertaken in a continuous process. When the duty paid single yarn undergoes the process of doubling and twisting in the appellant s factory the same was fed into two for one (TFO) machine, wherein the yarn undergoes the process of twisting, doubling and counts wound in a cone in one integrated proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Sr. Raja Rajeshwara Co.op. Spinning Mills Ltd. - 2004 (170) ELT 350 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein it has been held that singly ply yarn continue to remain single ply and no new product come to existence and merely because of the process of winding on the cops, the goods do not become different. He further submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is based on flawed reasoning and without proper appreciation of Sl.No. 137 of Notification 5/99, which grants exemption to yarn subjected to beaming, warping, reaping, winding or reeling or any one or more of these processes with or without the aid of power and produce out of the yarn falling under Chapter 52, 54 or 55 of the schedule. He also submitted that appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them for the process to be undertaken by them; that the yarn so received was first subjected to the process of doubling in their TFO machine; that after completion of this process, the said yarn would be subjected to the process of winding; that this process of winding done on duty paid yarn is wholly exempted under Notification No. 5/99 dated 01.03.99 (Sl.No. 137). The process was done in Two for one (TFO) machine, in which appellants claimed that the machine is only for twisting and not for winding and it only twists the single yarns into multi fold yarn and further submits that the TFO machine is built in modular sections and contains Drive Pulley, Foot rest, Jockey Pulleys, Inner Pot, Spindle, Jockey Pulley lever, Intermediate Frame, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remain yarn and no new product come to existence and merely because of the process of winding on the cops, the goods do not become different. Alternatively, the appellants claim the benefit of Sl. No. 130 of the Notification No. 5/99 which exempts multiple or cabled yarn manufactured in a factory which does not have the facilities for producing single yarn. We find that the Apex Court in the case of Swastic Rayon Processors (supra), has held that twisting and doubling of yarn does not amount to manufacture and the yarn continues to be yarn. The relevant portion of the said decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- 6. Counsel appearing for the revenue strenuously argued that this Court has taken contrary views in tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents against the revenue have not taken note of Aditya Mills Ltd. (supra). We do not find any force in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. The point in issue is concluded against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by the four decisions of this Court, referred to above, out of which three decisions are by the three Hon ble Judges. It is true that in the case of Porritts Spencer (Asia) Ltd. (supra) the decision of this Court in Aditya Mills Ltd. (supra) was not taken note of but the decision of the Tribunal which was confirmed in Aditya Mills Ltd. (supra) had been taken note of and was distinguished. 8. The Apex Court s decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. As the appellant has received on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
