TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the composite yarn manufactured by the assessee constituted a separate excisable item of goods liable to duty. (ii) Whether the yarn categories in question fell within Tariff Item No. 18B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff.
Issue (i): Whether the composite yarn manufactured by the assessee constituted a separate excisable item of goods liable to duty.
Analysis: The first question had already been concluded against the assessee in the Revenue's favour, and that conclusion was upheld.
Conclusion: The composite yarn was liable to be treated as a separate item of goods on which excise duty could be levied, in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the yarn categories in question fell within Tariff Item No. 18B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff.
Analysis: The tariff entry was read as requiring a comparison between the relevant fibre and the other constituents of the composite yarn. Predominance in weight was held to mean that the relevant fibre must weigh more than each of the other constituent fibres in the composite yarn, and not that it must exceed 50% of the total weight. On that construction, the yarns with acrylic fibre at 50% and the remaining fibres at lesser percentages satisfied the entry.
Conclusion: The yarn categories in question fell within Tariff Item No. 18B(ii), in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The composite yarn was held dutiable and the disputed yarn categories were classified under Tariff Item No. 18B(ii), so the Revenue succeeded in the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: In a tariff entry using the phrase 'predominates in weight' for composite yarn, predominance is determined by comparison with the other constituent fibres and does not require the relevant fibre to exceed half of the total weight.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
