TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of yarn. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct classification of Taspa yarn manufactured by them. Before we go into the manufacturing process and the two contending entries for classification of yarn, we note that the impugned order stand passed by Commissioner in de novo proceedings. The earlier order of the Tribunal accepted the Revenue's claim of classification as also the finding of invocation of longer period and rejected the appeal. The said order was appealed against by the assessee before Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide their order dt. 18-12-2002, the matter was remanded to Tribunal for re-decision. Tribunal, in turn, remanded the matter to the Commissioner. As a result, the present impugned order stan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moving at lower speed and other at faster speed to give slub effect, cannot be said to be having any core yarn. 7. As such, by referring to Board's circular No. 26/88-CX.I, dt. 10-10-88, and Circular No. 16/Special Yarns/88, dt. 26-4-88, it was held that the yarn having core yarn is classifiable under Heading 56.06 as special yarn and the yarn which do not have any core yarn are covered under Chapter 50-55 of the tariff. As such, view taken by Tribunal in case of Pratik Crimpers v. CCE reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 437 was upheld as correct law. As such submits the learned advocate that in view of the above Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, wherein an identical yarn having emerged by way of identical process was considered, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn. We, however, do not find any favour with the above argument. Having carefully gone through Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of M/s. D.P. Lon, we find that the manufacturing process in that case is the same as adopted by the appellant in the present case. Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the entire fact and the manufacturing process and has held that the same would be properly classifiable under Heading 56.06. As such, admission or no admission by M/s. D.P. Lon before Hon'ble Supreme Court would not matter as the issue of classification being a declaration of law by Apex Court, has to be applied to the identical issue involved in the present case. 10. For the similar reason, we find no merit in the appellant's contentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reading of different case-laws on the subject, it is pretty well evident that various manufacturers of Taspa yarn in and around Surat where the appellant's factory is situated had been classifying and clearing the product Taspa yarn under Chapter 54 only and not 56. The fact that the learned Chemical Examiner had also not indicated in his test report about presence of core yarn and the fact that he has categorically ruled out the presence of Taspa yarn as core yarn vide his cross examination report, it is supporting of the fact that the appellants themselves were quite justified in holding such bona fide belief that Taspa yarn manufactured by them was not special yarn. For all these reasons, the learned Commissioner ought not to have inv....