1988 (2) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise<br>Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan, JJ. A.K. Gangauli, Senior Advocate (P. Parmeswaran and K. Swamy, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. [Judgment per : Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.]. - This is a statutory appeal under Section 35-L(B) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the 'Act' against the Order dated February 22, 1984 passed by the Customs, Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bre which were commercially two distinct products and the respondents had carried on manufacture of polyester staple fibre from tow and, as such, exigible to duty. The respondents filed an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs against the Collector's Order. The appeal was thereafter transferred to CEGAT in pursuance of Section 35P of the Act. 3. It appears that there is distinct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....material which the respondents had purchased was already man-made fibre but in running length. All that the respondents did in relation to it, was to cut it into staple length after some manual sorting and straightening. The question, therefore, is whether cutting the long fibre into short fibre resulted into a new and different article of commerce. Now it is well settled how to determine whether ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a and Others, etc. - 1985 Suppl. 1 SCR page 292 = 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.), and M/s. Ujagar Prints v. Union of India - 1986 Suppl. SCC 652 = 1987 (27) E.L.T. 567. In the instant case it is not disputed that what the appellant did, was to cut the running length fibre (tow) into short length fibre (staple fibre). It indubitably brought a change in the substance but did not bring into existence a ....