TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (3) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Third Schedule to the Act and that, therefore, the turnover relating to the same is entitled to exemption. Accordingly, the said turnover was deleted from the gross turnover under both the assessments. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore, initiated proceedings under section 32 of the Act in the view that the cotton bandings and cotton ropes sold by the assessees would not come within the meaning of "textiles" under item 4 of the Third Schedule. After hearing the objections of the assessees and relying on the decision in K. R. Subbier v. State of Madras[1973] 31 S.T.C. 205., the Deputy Commissioner held that these cotton bandings and cotton ropes are not textiles within the meaning of item 4 and that, therefore, they are assessable to sales tax at multi-point. The assessees preferred appeals to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the goods sold by the assessees are neither textiles nor cotton fabrics and that the turnover, therefore, has been rightly assessed to tax under the Act. In these revision petitions the learned counsel for the assessees raised two contentions: His first contention was that the cotton bandings and cotton yarn sold by the assessees ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and hosiery cloth in lengths." According to the learned counsel, the word "textiles" in this item is used in the generic or technical sense and has to be understood as such and not in the popular sense or as understood in common parlance. So understood, any manifestation of spun yarn by reason of the grouping, banding, braiding, twisting or by the conventional form of weaving would be textiles. He also relied on the items included in the inclusive part of the item, such as tapes, niwars and laces as indicating that the word "textiles" is not used in this provision as what is popularly known but only in the technical sense. His further argument is that the article produced and sold by them is the result of grouping the yarn and twisting into a definite shape which is cylindrical in form and that, therefore, it is textile. In support of his argument he relied on a number of decisions and the meanings for certain words given in "The Mercury Dictionary of Textile Terms" compiled by the staff of "Textile Mercury" and published by Textile Mercury Ltd., 41, Spring Gardens, Manchester-2, England. In the Mercury Dictionary of Textile Terms the meaning of "textile" is given as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngredient of textile is weaving and since the article in question was not a woven material but was produced by pasting the cotton threads together parallelwise, it could not be treated as textiles. This court observed: " 'Fabric' itself is, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 'thing put together; woven material; texture, tissue'. There is no doubt, therefore, that the ingredient of textile is necessarily weaving, and what is not woven can hardly be described as textile. The various items mentioned in the entry themselves point to this meaning. Tapes made as a result of weaving would clearly be within the entry. But, would it be so if the normal pattern of producing textile by using the warp and woof pattern of thread is not applied? In our view, that will not be conclusive. We are inclined to think that weaving is not necessarily limited to that type of weaving. In modern advancement of textile technology, it is now possible, without using the warp and the woof pattern to produce tape, by holding the threads together lengthwise by using gum. To a casual look, the product resembles a tape which has been woven in the normal sense on the loom. But it is not the appearance a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of science and technological methods it had become possible even without using warp and woof pattern to produce textiles. But whatever be the form of using the threads, it should be so as to evolve a pattern and make them into a product of utility and the yarn should cease its quality as yarn and the product must be adaptible as a textile. Thus, while we agree with the learned counsel for the assessees that in order to produce textiles any method of grouping, banding, braiding, twisting or weaving could be adopted, merely by reason of twisting of yarn the article produced would not become textile. We are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the assessees that the word "textiles" in item 4 of Schedule III would have to be understood in the technical or generic sense and not in the popular sense. In fact, this court in State of Tamil Nadu v. East India Rubber Woks, Madras-1[1974] 33 S.T.C. 399. held that it must be interpreted according to its ordinary or popular sense, that is, in the sense in which it is commonly understood in ordinary parlance and not in its technical sense. Even the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel[1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before it was not cotton yarn. No reason is given why the word 'cord' is not cotton yarn. The 'cord' in question is a bunch of spun thread spread to a particular shape for a definite commercial purpose. Nevertheless it does not cease to be yarn." It is true that yarn does not lose its character as yarn merely by reason of its consisting of a bunch of threads, as in the case of doubling, and twisting together of two or more threads to make a stronger or firmer thread in order to manufacture a specified kind of textile; it still retains its character as yarn. Thus, merely on the ground that the yarn in question consists of a bunch of spun thread, it could not be held that it is not yarn. At the same time all bunches of spun thread, irrespective of the purpose for which it is intended to be used, could not be held to be yarn. If the bunch of spun thread forms the basic spun yarn for weaving, it will still retain the character of yarn. In other words, its capability of being used for making textiles within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule would determine its character as yarn. Once the produce is not and could not be used for such manufacture of textiles, it ceases to be....