TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (5) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Court was delivered by SUHAS C. SEN, J.-M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Bhilwara, has come up in appeal against an order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The case in the Tribunal was heard by a Bench comprising the Senior Vice-President and the Judicial Member. There was difference of opinion between the two Members on the following question: Whether, the blended yarn in which polypropylene fibre predominates was or was not entitled to benefit under Central Excise Notification No. 322/77-CE, dated December 1, 1977. The matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal who agreed with the view expressed by the Judicial Member that the term "polypropyle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) containing more than one-sixth by weight of non-cellulosic fibre calculated on the total fibre content. Explanation I.-'Count' means the size of grey yarn (excluding any sizing material) expressed in English count. Explanation II.-For multiple fold yarn, 'count' means the count of the basic single yarn. Explanation III.-Where two or more of the following fibres, that is to say,- (a) man-made fibre of cellulosic origin; (b) cotton; (c) wool or acrylic fibre, or both; (d) silk (including silk noil); (e) jute (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta fibre); (f) man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin, other than acrylic fibre; (g) flax; (h) ramie; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1944. The appellant- company, however, claimed benefit of exemption from payment of the whole amount of duty of excise leviable under tariff item 18E on such yarn in view of a Notification No. 332/77 dated December 1, 1977, which, is as under: "Notification No. 332/77 dated December 1, 1977: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts polypropylene spun yarn falling under item No. 18-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. This notification shall remain in force up to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1979." It is of significance that subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, from the duty of excise, which would include not only pure polypropylene spun yarn, but also blended yarn, if the polypropylene component of the yarn was predominant in weight. It came within the mischief of tariff item No. 18E and was dutiable as such. The notification had the effect of exempting from duty all types of polypropylene spun yarn which fell within the ambit of tariff item 18E. The exemption given by the notification could not be restricted only to pure polypropylene spun yarn. The exemption was given to polypropylene spun yarn which means whatever polypropylene spun yarn came within the mischief of tariff item 18E. It was argued in support of this contention that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the contentions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be upheld in the facts of this case and in view of the wording of the notification dated December 1, 1977. This notification exempts from duty polypropylene spun yarn falling under tariff item 18E, but not blended spun yarns containing polypropylene. Admittedly, the blended yarn manufactured by the appellant, containing 52 per cent polypropylene and 48 per cent viscose, will fall within the tariff item 18E, coming within the ambit of the tariff description "spun (discontinuous) yarn in which man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin, other than the acrylic fibre, predominate in weight". But blended yarn in which polypropylene predominates in weight has not been exempted. The exemption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....predominance of polypropylene, the goods produced will be classified as "non-cellulosic spun yarn" under tariff item 18E. The exemption notification, however, is confined to polypropylene spun yarn only. It does not speak of any blended yarn in which polypropylene predominates or is equal in weight with any other fibre. It has been noted in the order of the Judicial Member that no proof was adduced to show that in commercial parlance such blended yarn was known as polypropylene yarn. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the blended yarn produced by the appellant comprising 52 per cent polypropylene fibre and 48 per cent viscose fibre will answer the description "polypropylene spun yarn" as given in the exemption notification. It is....