Polymerisation of monomers, not organic polymers, preserved exemption under the excise notification.

Exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was available because the evidence showed polymerisation of monomers, namely dimethyl terephthalate and monoethylene glycol, rather than polymerisation of organic polymers. The record did not establish that the appellant's process fell within the exclusion for man-made staple fibre manufactured by polymerisation of organic polymers, and the departmental material contained no clear finding to that effect. On that basis, the exclusion clause was not attracted, the denial of exemption was unsustainable, and the exemption remained admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was manufacturing man-made staple fibre by polymerisation of organic polymers so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 1-3-1997.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the waste arose from manufacture of man-made staple fibre by polymerisation of organic polymers, which would exclude the goods from the exemption. The technical materials and the report relied upon by the appellant showed that the process used dimethyl terephthalate and monoethylene glycol as monomers and involved polymerisation of those raw materials. The record did not establish that the appellant was polymerising organic polymers, and the departmental material did not contain a clear finding to that effect.

Conclusion: The appellant was not manufacturing man-made staple fibre by polymerisation of organic polymers, and the exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 1-3-1997 was admissible.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows polymerisation of monomers and not polymerisation of organic polymers, exemption conditions excluding goods manufactured by the latter process are not attracted.

---