TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (7) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt by extrusion process from out of polymer chips of plastic grade. They filed a classification list on 16-4-1985 declaring that the product attracts T.I. No. 18II(i)(a) of the old Tariff Item and claimed assessment at concessional rate of 6.25 per kg. Monofilament, according to appellants is used in the manufacture of Zip Fasteners for making spiral teeth. The classification list was provisionally approved by the Assistant Collector on 1-5-1985. Samples of the raw material as well as of spiral teeth which is the end product were then drawn and sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist. Pending receipt of the test results, the monofilaments were cleared after payment of duty on provisional basis. On 2-8-1985 appellants represented to Assistant Colle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and since it is produced by extrusion process and since it could not be used for weaving, it would be a mistake to treat monofilament as `yarn'. 5.  Assistant Collector relying on the chemical analysis report held by order dated 22-8-1986 that monofilament produced by the appellants fell under T.I. 18II(i)(a). Aggrieved by the said order an appeal was filed before Collecor (Appeals) Madras on 6-9-1986. Collector (Appeals) confirmed Assistant Collector's order stating that the product was correctly classified under T.I. No. 18II(i)(a). 6. In the present appeal before the Tribunal appellants contend that the view taken by lower authorities is not tenable in law. Appellants contend that the only ground on which the lower author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scription of `yarn' in the ordinary commercial sense it must have to characteristics, namely, it should be a spun strand and secondly such strand should be primarily meant for use in weaving, knitting or rope making. In Hind Syntex Ltd. case reported in [1985 (19) E.L.T. 35 (M.P.)] the Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that the word `yarn' was neither defined in the Central Excise Act nor in the Rules. The High Court also took the view that the description of `yarn' must answer two characteristics, namely, it should be a strand and such strand should be primarily meant for weaving, knitting or rope making. Appellants relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Muthusavari Pillai & Sons v. State of Tamilnadu - 1977 Tax L.R. 2376....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aspect has not been disputed. It was also not necessary that `yarn' should invariably be capable of use for weaving purposes. The essential criterion was that the product should be drawn out from one fibre so as to produce a strand. 9. .We have considered the submissions and perused the Appeal papers. It is true that there is no definition of the word `yarn' either in the Act or in the Rules. The dictionary meaning and common parlance meaning of `yarn' definitely connotes its use in weaving and spinning. In the Tribunal decision in Asup Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the same question has been elaborately discussed and it was held that filament was not synonymous to filament yarn. The question before us is whether monofilament, manufactured by ....