Manufacture by slitting metallised film confirmed for metallic yarn classification under the specific excise tariff entry.

Slitting metallised polyester film into thin strips was treated as manufacture because the product obtained was man-made metallic yarn with a different name, use and character. The process was supported by the machine catalogue showing the slitter and winder were used to produce metallic yarn, and the earlier Supreme Court view in Vac Met Corpn. was relied on to confirm that slitting metallised sheets into metallic yarn constitutes manufacture. As man-made metallic yarn was specifically included in Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff from 16-3-1972, the goods were classifiable under that specific entry rather than the general entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether slitting metallised polyester films into thin strips resulted in manufacture of man-made metallic yarn, and whether the goods were classifiable under Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff rather than under Item No. 15.

Analysis: The goods brought in were metallised polyester film, while the product obtained after slitting was metallic yarn having a different name, use and character. The machine catalogue also showed that the slitter and winder were used for producing metallic yarn. The process was held to amount to manufacture, and the earlier Supreme Court view in Vac Met Corpn. was relied upon to support the conclusion that slitting metallised sheets into metallic yarn constitutes manufacture. From 16-3-1972, man-made metallic yarn was specifically included in Item No. 18 of the Tariff, and a goods description squarely falling within a specific tariff entry could not be taken outside excise levy by reference to a more general entry.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable as man-made metallic yarn under Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the appeal failed.

---