2001 (6) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of monofilament. The period in dispute is w.e.f. 4-7-1991 to 3-10-1991. The Collector, Central Excise has held that the product is to be classified as synthetic monofilament yarn falling under sub-heading 5406.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short the "Act") and has ordered the appellants to pay duty for the period 4-7-1991 to 3-10-1991 at the appropriate rate prevailing at the material time. The Assistant Collector was directed to work out the correct duty to be paid by the appellants on demand and the appellants was directed to honour the same. The Assistant Collector has worked out a duty of Rs. 19,33,224.00 and the same was demanded from the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant in their appeal have contended that the goods in dispute are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise as articles of plastics under Entry No. 39.26 and they are entitled for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 53/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended from time to time. Their case is that they manufactured finished material from Nylon-6 moulding powder obtained from M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. The finished material is mainly used for making artificial hair and commercially they were marketing it by the name of "Atti". The users of this material buy in the commercial market only by using the "Atti". Translated to English it would mean "bundle". In other words the material is in entangled manner and sold in ....