2000 (9) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri H.L. Banerjee, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Orissa Weavers Cooperative Spinning Mills - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 348. He submits that it has been held by the Tribunal that conversion of yarn from one stage to another stage does not amount to manufacture or removal under Rules 9 and 49 and no duty can be demanded at bobbin stage or at hank stage. He submits that the said order of the Tribunal was also followed subsequently in the case of Orissa Cotton Mills, Cuttack v. CCE, BBSR vide order No. 63 and 64/86-D. He submits that though the Commissioner (Appeals) accepts that the issue is covered but he has not followed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals). Similarly Shri Banerjee makes a reference to another order of the Asstt. Commissioner dropping the demand on an identical issue for the period from January 1989 to June 1989. He submits that the said order has also been accepted by the Revenue and no appeal has been filed thereagainst. 3. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appears on behalf of Revenue and draws our attention to Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 52 which is to the effect that conversion of any form of the product under Heading No. 52.53 into another form of such product shall amount to manufacture. As such he submits that the duty is leviable on yarn at bobbin stage for captive use in the manufacture of reel hank. 4. After considering the submissions made from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inning Mills relied upon by the ld. consultant. In para 5 of Orissa Weavers' Judgment it was observed by the Bench as under :- 5. We have carefully considered the matter. We observe from Rule 9, read with Rule 49, that the charge of duty arises when excisable goods are sought to be removed from the manufacturing premises "for consumption, export or manufacture of any other commodity in or outside such place". The Department's point is that removal of cotton yarn on cones for conversion into doubled yarn hanks amounts to removal for manufacture of another commodity and hence the respondents are required to pay the duty at the time of removal of cones. We do not agree with the Department. As made clear in Explanation (2) below item 18A,....