TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under heading 5509.50 is not entitled to the exemption claimed under Notification No. 4/97 C.E., dated 1-3-1997 (at Sl. No. 113(e) of the said Notification) and in terms of subsequent notification No. 5/98 C.E., dated 02-06-1998 vide Sl. No. 136(c), consequently the Assistant Commissioner has also confirmed the demand for duty aggregating to Rs. 17,54,497/- demanded in the various Show Cause Notices. 3. The demand in question is confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the appellant's product is not eligible for the said exemption inasmuch as the exemption at Sl. No. 113 will be applicable to "Yarn of Polyester Staple fibre containing cotton, Ramie, or Artificial staple fibre or any one or more of these fibres (not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant's product in question i.e. yarn of 2/60's "Polyester/Viscose dyed yarn". (b) The Assistant Commissioner has completely misdirected himself in his observation in the impugned order on "Yarn of Polyester fibre containing cotton, Ramie or Artificial fibre or any one or more of these fibres" is to be understood as envisaging "yarn of polyester staple fibre containing cotton, should contain either Ramie or Artificial Fibre or any one or more of these fibres". (c) That the Assistant Commissioner is fundamentally incorrect in both legal and grammatical perspectives, in having mis-read the expression "yarn of polyester fibre containing cotton, Ramie or Artificial fibre" occurring in Sl. No. 113(c) of Notification No. 4/97 dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id benefit on the totally unsustainable reasoning of the said yarn not having any content of cotton. Further, the relevant exemption notifications required to be read in its verbatim and in plain terms and with regard to the language employed as held by various Hon'ble Tribunals and Courts reported in : (i) 1996 (86) E.L.T. 453 (Supreme Court) (ii)  1996 (85) E.L.T. 225 (Bom. HC) (iii) 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (S.C.) Accordingly, the appellants pleaded and strongly contend that the order of Original Authority denying the benefits of the exemption Notification No. 4/97, dated 1-3-1997 and 5/98, dated 2-6-1998 for the impugned goods is not proper, correct and legal and hence should be set aside with consequential relief/benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat any yarn to be covered under the aforesaid entry should necessarily contain polyester staple fibre and cotton and optionally, either ramie or artificial staple fibre or both. The Original Authority has come to the above conclusion looking at the entry against Sl. No. 122(b) and (c) of the same Notification relating to fabrics. 8. A close examination of the relevant entry reveals that, the first part of the same refers to yarn of polyester staple fibre. This means that in the yarn in question, polyester staple fibre should first of all predominate and only then, the yarn could be called as the yarn of polyester staple fibre. In the context of blended fibre, in which polyester staple fibre predominates, the tariff entry envisages th....