1998 (2) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Consultant and Appeal No. E/987/91-D is represented by Shri D.S. Mindhe, Sr. Manager (Excise) of the appellants' unit. In both the cases, Revenue was represented by Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR. 3. The appellants were a composite unit operating under the provisions of Rule 49A. The appellants claimed that waste yarn was exempted under Notification 95/61, dated 3-4-1961 as amended by Notification 172/72-C.E. The contention of the party is that definition of waste cotton yarn given therein is merely the description of the yarn and there is no restriction with regard to the stage at which such waste arises. The Assistant Collector has held that as per notifications, 100% pertained to waste yarn which has occurred not in the process of we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kumari Mills never dealt with either of 95/61 and 172/72 and accordingly those decisions of the Tribunal are not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that as per proviso to the notification, the notification restricts the exemption to waste yarn arising prior to its removal for weaving. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. We find that with reference to the Notification 95/61 has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Morarjee Goculdas Spg. & Wvg. Mills and relevant para 4 of the said order is reproduced as under : "The first observation made by the Collector is that waste occurred after removal of....