1989 (5) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand confirmed by him is also time barred. He pointed out that the demand has been made right from the date of commencement of manufacture viz. 1/5/81 to 30/4/84, by issuing a show cause notice dated 25-7-84. The applicants have filed declaration for claiming exemption from the licensing control since they were manufacturing HDPE & PP monofilament yarn, which were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 194/72 and 242/79. The aforesaid exemption Notifications totally exempted HDPE monofilament yarn of 60 deniers and above and Poly Propylene monofilament yarn of the same deniers. In view of the declaration filed, they were not required to file any classification list. All the same, they were maintaining the record of raw materials u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mposed of different articles, it should be classified according to the predominance of the articles and also the essential character. In this case, if the predominance is to be judged in the term of weight of the raw materials, H.D.P.E. is more than 50% and hence it should be classified as only HDPE monofilament yarn. In regard to the time bar, Shri Satalvad contended that the applicants being an exempted unit, they were not required to file classification list. All the same, they were maintaining raw materials record. They also filed the declaration claiming exemption from the licensing control. If the department had any doubt regarding the classification and eligibility to exemption they, could have drawn samples and tested and initiated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the basic issue to be decided in the appeal is regarding the classification of the monofilament yarn manufactured by the applicants and their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 194/72 and Notfn. No. 242/79. The type of yarn manufactured by them as seen from the findings of the Collector is composed of 35% to 46% LDPE granules. The fact that LDPE granules is mixed with the HDPE is not disputed. It is also evident from the order of the Collector, Nagpur, which is also taken cognisance by the respondent Collector, that even in a case of mixture of LDPE of 20%, he has conceded that the exemption is eligible. The question whether the LDPE content upto 46% would change its essent....