Prescribed tariff test procedure governs yarn classification; deviation from the mandated method cannot sustain demand or denial of exemption.

Demand and denial of exemption under Notification No. 31/93-C.E. failed because the yarn sample was not tested by the method prescribed in Note 2 of Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff. The sample had been examined under IS 7703 (Part I) 1990, but the tariff required a specific denier-determination procedure. A clarification that both methods were broadly similar did not cure non-compliance with the mandated test protocol, so the demand was held unsustainable and the exemption could not be denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and denial of exemption under Notification No. 31/93-C.E. were sustainable when the yarn sample was tested by a method different from the procedure prescribed in Note 2 of Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The sample was admittedly tested by the Chief Chemist under Indian Standard IS 7703 (Part-I) 1990, whereas Note 2 of Chapter 54 prescribed the specific method for determining denier. The prescribed tariff procedure was not followed. The clarification from the Director (Revenue Laboratories) that both methods were basically the same did not cure the non-compliance with the tariff-mandated test procedure.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the denial of exemption could not be upheld.

---