TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 31-10-1976. The short question for consideration is whether the multifold yarn or doubled yarn prepared by the appellants out of duty paid cotton yarn and nylon filament yarn attracts duty under Item 18A/18E of the Central Excise Tariff. The facts reveal that the appellants are manufacturers of paper makers cotton dryer felts. They purchase coarse cotton yarn and duty paid nylon filament yarn f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought into existence by a process of manufacturing. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Union Carbide India Ltd. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 1), the Tribunal held that the test of general marketability is not a sound test in the case of monopoly products since the multifold yarn was prepared for weaving felts which was monopoly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union Carbide India Limited v. Union of India & Ors. - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) = (1986) 2 SCC 547, by which the decision of the Allahabad High Court on which the Tribunal placed reliance came to be reversed. This Court pointed out in paragraph 6 of the judgment that in order to attract excise duty the article manufactured must be capable of sale to a consumer. It was further pointed out that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the meaning of the Act. It was also found that the aluminum cans in the crude form without being put to trimming, threading and redrawing were unknown to the market. Since there was no satisfactory material laid to the contrary the Court held on facts that the aluminium cans did not attract excise duty. In the present case also, we find that except indicating the process of preparing multifold ya....