TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (10) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re an appeal presented before the Tribunal. 2. The issue involved in this case, as stated in the Order-in-Appeal of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, is whether cotton yarn on which duty has been paid under Item 18A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and staple fibre yarn on which duty has been paid under Item 18, when twisted and doubled together to produce another object, should be made to pay duty under Item 18E ibid. The Appellate Collector has held that the answer is in the affirmative. Against this decision, the appellants had filed their revision application which has now been transferred to us. 3. The orders of the authorities below covered five specific sorts of yarn described in five classific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioners used weft yarn which contained 82% cotton yarn and 18% twinkle nylon yarn. While the cotton yarn was manufactured by the petitioners themselves, the nylon yarn was purchased from the market. The cotton yarn and the nylon yarn were twisted or intertwined, and the resultant yarn was used by the petitioners in the manufacture of their fabrics. 7. In the above case, the High Court held that by merely intertwining the strands of cotton yarn and nylon yarn it was difficult to hold that a new product came into existence. The High Court further observed that the process of blending adopted by the petitioners was unique in their case and such blended yarn was not available in the open market. The High Court took note of affi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be taken to fall under Item 68 CET and not under Item 18E. He admitted that this was a new plea which had not been advanced before the lower authorities, but submitted that he should be allowed to urge it before us. We considered that in the interests to justice he should not be debarred from raising this plea, and therefore allowed him to do so. 11. We asked Shri Gopal Prasad whether in view of the fact that the five yarns had different compositions, containing both cellulosic and non-cellulosic material, and considering also the fact that Item 18E referred to "non-cellulosic spun yarn", he wished to urge that any of the products in question would be excluded from the scope of Item 18E in view of its composition. Shri Gopal Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res whereas filament yarn consists of a single homogeneous length. 14. As regards the case of Piramal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., cited by Shri Gopal Prasad, Shri Tayal submitted that this related to the period prior to the amendment of Item 18E and would not apply to the present case. 15. In the result Shri Tayal submitted that the products in question had been rightly held as coming within the scope of Item 18E, and that this Item would cover them, provided their composition conformed to the description of that Item, which requires that man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin, other than acrylic fibre, predominate in weight. 16. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides. It may be observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the question whether the process of twisting or doubling two yarns is a process of manufacture, we may mention that this question has been considered in detail in our Order No. 395/83-D in the case of Messrs Aditya Mills Ltd. We had held in that case that the process of doubling or twisting was a process of manufacture. That decision would be clearly applicable to the present case. 19. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., on which Shri Gopal Prasad has relied, can be clearly distinguished from the present case, as will be seen from what has been stated in para 7 above. In that case the petitioners were manufacturers of fabrics. The "twinkle yarn" which was the subject of those ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....83-D, dated 17-9-1983 to consider the meaning of the expression "pre-dominates in weight". We have held that for a particular constituent to predominate in weight, it should comprise more than 50% of the weight of the fabric. That view would be applicable to the present case. 21. Shri Gopal Prasad had filed copies of the classification lists of the five products in question, giving the detailed composition of each and showing the percentage of cotton, cellulosic man-made fibre and non-cellulosic man-made fibre. From the details given in the copies of the classification lists filed by Shri Gopal Prasad, it would appear that none of the five products satisfies the condition that non-cellulosic man-made fibre should predominate in weig....