1997 (3) TMI 209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 informed the appellants that their aforesaid product would fall under tariff sub-heading 5504.32. Accordingly, they started clearing the aforesaid product on payment of nil rate of duty which was the rate prescribed under the said sub-heading. 1.3 Later on, by a show cause notice dated 25-4-1991, the appellants were asked to show cause as to why the duty of Rs. 5,90,796/- be not recovered from them for clearance of the said Yarn during the period 11-10-1990 to 26-3-1991 inasmuch as the said Yarn is required to be classified under tariff sub-heading 5504.90. The lower authorities have not accepted the contention of the appellants on the question of classification as also the question of time bar. Hence this appeal before the Tribun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- Other Rs. 18.90 per kg.   5504.90 - Other Rs. 27.72 per kg. 1.5 In short, the department's contention is that sub-heading 5504.32 does not apply to 100% Acrylic Yarn in view of the existence of the expression "predominates by weight" in the overall expression "Yarn in which Acrylic or Mono-Acrylic Staple Fibre predominates by weight". The contention of the Revenue is that the expression `predominates' will occur in the context of more than two varieties of Yarn available in a product. It is, therefore, contended that the product manufactured by the appellants which is 100% Acrylic Yarn will not be covered by the sub-heading 5504.32. 2. On the other hand, contention of the ld. consultant for the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeal itself after allowing the Stay Petition. 3.1 Opposing the contention, ld. SDR, Shri K.K. Biswas has reiterated the aforesaid contention of the Revenue and has also drawn attention to the findings of the lower appellate authority who has taken support from the General Explanatory Notes to the Tariff. 3.2 As regards the question of time bar, ld. SDR, Shri Biswas has submitted that in this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ballarpur Industries v. CC reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 499 would be more appropriate. He also points out that this judgment of the Apex Court has been delivered by three Learned Judges whereas the judgment of the Bhiwani Textile (supra) has been delivered by the two learned ....