Tariff classification of air-texturised yarn turns on the finished product's character, not the process used.

Tariff classification of air-texturised yarn depends on the character of the finished product under the HSN and reliable technical evidence, not merely on the machine or process used. Departmental and independent test reports, including laboratory and SASMIRA reports, described the product as multiple or multifold yarn rather than textured yarn. The VJTI opinion was treated as unreliable because of inconsistencies, incomplete responses to departmental queries, and inadequate application of the HSN definition of textured yarn. On that basis, the product was classified as multifold yarn under Chapter sub-headings 5402.61 and 5402.62, and the claim that it was textured yarn under 5402.31 and 5402.32 was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the yarn manufactured through an air-texturising process was classifiable as textured yarn under Chapter sub-heading 5402.31/5402.32 or as multifold yarn under Chapter sub-heading 5402.61/5402.62 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The classification turned on the true nature of the end product and not merely on the machine or process used. The record contained several departmental and independent test reports over different years. Most of those reports, including the departmental laboratory reports and the SASMIRA reports, described the product as multiple or multifold yarn and not textured yarn. The Tribunal found the VJTI opinion unreliable because of inconsistencies in the sample count, incompleteness in answering the departmental queries, and failure to apply the HSN definition of textured yarn with due care. The Tribunal also noted that the process of air-texturising by itself did not establish that the resultant product was necessarily textured yarn.

Conclusion: The correct classification was multifold yarn under Chapter sub-heading 5402.61 and 5402.62, not textured yarn under Chapter sub-heading 5402.31 and 5402.32.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish that the disputed product was textured yarn, and the assessee's classification was upheld on the basis of the predominant technical evidence and the nature of the finished product.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the decisive factor is the character of the finished product as understood under the HSN and supported by reliable technical evidence; the mere use of an air-texturising machine does not make the resultant yarn textured yarn.

---