1995 (3) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls relate to the period from 1-3-1971 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 ya....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... product having a distinct identity brought 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 prepare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eference to a decision of this Court in 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 con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hey could not be said to be goods within 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 indicati....