TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alling under T.I. No. 18. Some of the quantity of nylon yarn is used in the manufacture of tyre cord and tyre cord fabrics. Duty on nylon yarn so used in the manufacture of tyre cord/tyre cord fabrics is paid at the stage of removal of tyre cord fabrics. During the course of manufacture of tyre cord and tyre cord fabrics some waste of nylon yarn arises on which no duty was paid by the unit. Permission for deferment of payment of duty on nylon yarn at the tyre cord stage was granted by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. According to the department, the unit misused the concession granted to them and evaded central excise duty on the quantity of nylon yarn lost in the process of further manufacture of tyre cords and tyre cord fabrics. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue. 5. We have heard Smt. Shanti Sundaram, learned SDR and Ms. Amrita Mitra, learned Counsel and carefully considered their submissions. 6. According to the learned SDR, duty is payable on the entire quantity of yarn issued for manufacture of "tyre cord" Warp Sheet and any waste arising in the course of manufacture of yarn to fabric has to discharge duty at the rate applicable to yarn. She cites the following decisions in support of her contention : 1. Order No. 218-218A/86-D dated 14-4-1986 2. 1988 (12) ETR 446 3. Hindustan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 282 In all the above cases it has been held that duty is to be discharged on the entire quantity of yarn issued for manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Order-in-appeal No. 122-CE/JPR/84 dated 21-6-1984 relating to Shri Ram Rayons, Kota. The department's appeal, bearing No. E/2055/84-D against this order is pending before this Tribunal and it relates to the period 1-3-1975 to 31-3-1977. For the subsequent period the appeal of Shri Ram Rayons, Kota against classification list was disposed by the Collector (Appeals) order No. 49-CE/JPR/85 dated 26-2-1985, following the previous order and the appeal of the Revenue against this order was dismissed by order No. 74/93-D dated 26-2-1993. 9. As the basis of the present impugned order is that doubling and twisting of nylon yarn does not amount to manufacture and nylon tyre cord continues to fall under the same Tariff Item 18 as n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not relevant at all. On the other hand, it is the orders cited by the learned D.R. which were applicable to the facts of this case. 14. I also consider that Collector (Appeals) on one hand and the appellants on the other have not kept in view the above basic facts and, therefore, their views including those on time bar were not acceptable. We are not concerned with the clearance of the yarn waste falling under Tariff Item 18/4 recorded in RT-12 Returns (assessed or unassessed) as permission was given by Collector vide his order, dated 5-3-1975 is for assessment of yarn used in the manufacture of warp sheets - the basis for calculation being the weight of warp sheet minus the percentage of cotton yarn used in the fabric. 15.&e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was doubling and twisting of nylon yarn and as the same did not amount to manufacture the appeal was required to be rejected as held by the Hon'ble Member Judicial or it was a case of deferment of duty payable on yarn at the time of removal and its subsequent payment at the time of clearance of the fabric and, therefore, the Collector (Appeals) order was required to be set aside and the appeal accepted as held by the Vice President". 19. Both sides were heard when they reiterated the arguments raised before the double Member Bench and which have been brought out in the separate orders recorded by the Hon'ble Member Judicial and the Hon'ble Vice President. The issue involved in this case is whether the duty is recoverable on the wast....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istinct name and distinct usage. The present case therefore is distinguishable from the case relied upon by the Hon'ble Member Judicial. On this view of the matter and in view of the decisions cited by Ltd. CDR in order Nos. (i)218-218 A/86-D dt. 14-4-1986 (ii)1988 (12) ETR 446 (iii)1992 (57) E.L.T. 282 where it has been held that duty is to be discharged on the entire quantity of yarn issued for manufacture of fabric and not on the quantity of yarn actually contained in the fabric, I am agreeable with the view held by the Hon'ble Vice President that the duty was required to be paid on the entire quantity of yarn, a part of which was lost during conversion of single yarn into tyre cord. This in accordance with the provisions of ....