TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (5) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the appellants during the checking of the said godown it was observed that in addition to other yarns, yarns of following description and with markings on respective bales/bags as detailed below were lying : S.No. No. of bags Markings on cones and bags lying in Bonded store-room S. No. marked on bags Total 1. 6 Polyester/Viscose 2/40s 15/85 Lot No. 1553 104 to 109 of 50 Kgs each 300 Kgs 2. 11 Polyester/Viscose 2/40s 15/85 Lot No. 1555 46 to 52 = 764 to 66 = 3 103 = 1 50Kgs each 550 Kgs 3. 11 Polyester/Viscose 35/65 2/60s Lot No. 1636 51 to 650 Kgs each 550 Kgs 4. 45 Polyester/Cotton 65/35 2/40s Lot No. 2554 1 to 21 = 2124 to 29 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e used synthetic waste in the manufacture of said yarns. 17 bags bearing lot Nos. 1636, 1553, 1555 and 2554 were seized on the ground that the appellants had not discharged correct duty liability. The sample of the said yarn drawn and sent to the Chemical Examiner, New Delhi and contents of the test report as under : "Lot No. 1555 :- The sample is two ply spun yarn, composed of man-made fibre of cellulosic origin 87.7% and man-made fibre of cellulosic origin (Polyester) 12.3%. Lot No. 1553 :- The sample is two ply spun yarn, composed of man-made fibre of cellulosic origin 89.4% and man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin (Polyester) 10.6%. Lot No. 1636 :- The sample is two ply yarn, composed of man-made fibre of cellulosic origin ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. 4. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants had purchased 2,000 Kg. of synthetic waste from M/s. Navneet (P) Ltd., of Ludhiana which was used in manufacture of blended yarn covered by lot Nos. 1553, 1555, 1636 and 2554. It is clear from the para of the show cause notice, synthetic waste was purchased from M/s. Navneet Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana and non-production of bill of entry by the importer is not criterion to decide that it was not synthetic waste but fibre. He said that synthetic waste was distinct from man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin and it was only a mistake of dealing clerk entered in R.G. 1 register as NCSW/Viscose and NCSW/Cotton resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin, as synthetic waste is not fibre and accordingly such yarn is classifiable under CETI 18-III(i) and not under CETI 18-III(ii). He contended that chemical examiner is not equipped to differentiate non-cellulosic fibre from non-cellulosic waste and with reference to the identical goods sample was tested by SASMIRA and in the report from SASMIRA it is clearly said that "there was considerable variation in denier." According to the report manifestly absent in the goods so tested and as such the goods cannot be treated as non-cellulosic fibres but non-cellulosic waste falling under Tariff Item 18-IV. 5. Shri Mohan Lal, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that waste is distinct and d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether yarn covered by Lot Nos. 1553, 1555, 1636 and 2554 is made of synthetic waste. From various technical books and finding of the Tribunal it is clearly established that fibre is different from waste. On the basis of examination of chemical or otherwise, an expert can find out whether basic raw material used for the manufacture of yarn was a fibre or synthetic waste. It is clear from the investigation as well as report from the chemical examiner that yarn of these lots was composed of polyester of fibre and viscose. It is not only the examination report but marking on cones and bags confirm that these goods were made of fibre. It is difficult to conceive that it was only a clerical mistake, as argued by the appellants and the clerical....