1988 (3) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The view taken by the said authorities is that the hand-knitting wool which the petitioners are manufacturing does not get the benefit of the exemption granted by Notification No. 27/75 issued on 1st of March, 1975 by the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance. That notification says that various types of yarn spun out of synthetic staple fibres falling under Item No. 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and of the description specified in column No. (2) of the table to the said Schedule shall stand exempted from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entry in column No. (3) thereof. In other words, the effect ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioners, it has been held that the hand-knitting yarn is not a yarn other than textured yarn. In fact, it has been held to be a textured yarn because of the explanation which has been added to Item No. 18. That explanation is as follows :- "Textured yarn' means yarn that has been processed to introduce crimps, coils, loops or curls along with the length of the filaments and shall include bulked yarn and stretch yarn." The authorities, whose view has now been challenged in this petition, have taken the view that the product manufactured by the 1st petitioners is a bulked yarn because it is subjected to certain process which converts it into bulked yarn. 4. This view has been challenged in this petition. Mr. Jagdish Prem, the learne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a particular process becomes bulked yarn, then it must be held to be texturised yarn. If it is texturised yarn, then it will not be covered by Item No. 18(i). If it is not so covered, then the benefit of the exemption notification will not be available to the petitioners. 6. Mr. Prem invited my attention to an order of the Appellate Collector dated 28th of March, 1978 given in the case of Kashmilon Processing Industries. According to him, the view taken by the Appellate Collector is contrary to the one taken in these proceedings. I have, with the assistance of Mr. Prem, gone through this order and I find, as pointed out by Mr. Deodhar appearing for the respondents, that the Appellate Collector took the view on the peculiar facts before ....