TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Schedule and accordingly cleared it on payment of duty during the period May, 2000 to November, 2000. For the subsequent period, December, 2000 to March, 2001, they filed fresh declaration under Rule 173B classifying the yarn under SH 5205.90 (attracting NIL rate of duty) and cleared the product without payment of duty during such period. The department did not approve the latter declaration. They took the view that the product in question was appropriately classifiable as 'gimped yarn' under SH 5606.00 attracting higher rate of duty. Accordingly, the department issued show cause notices to the assessee demanding duty for the period December, 2000 to March, 2001 and proposing penalty on the noticee. The show cause notices were contested by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....un yarn". The assessee wants this product to be classified under SH 5205.90 while the Revenue would classify it under SH 5205.11. Heading 52.05 reads as under :- Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate of duty Basic Additional (1) (2) (3) (5) (4) 52.05 Cotton yarn (other than sewing thread), containing 85% or more by weight of cotton - In or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power 5205.11 -- Single Yarn 16% 5205.19 -- Multiple (folded) or cabled yarn 16% 5205.90 - Other NIL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the lower authorities ignored expert opinion without any rhyme or reason. Even according to the adjudicating authority, SITRA is a renowned authority on textile matters and is dedicated to textile research. Nevertheless, their opinion was not duly taken into account, Counsel submits. It was categorically stated by the Head of Textile Physics Division of SITRA that the sample of yarn from the appellant's factory was of core spun category and could not be termed as single or double yarn. This view stated by the expert was totally ignored by the adjudicating authority. It has been further pointed out that the decision of the original authority was simply upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) without a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar product of M/s. Microstretch Elastomers Pvt. Ltd. We are unable to countenance the reliance placed on the test results pertaining to another manufacturer's product. For the same reason, we reject the reliance placed by the appellant on the report of the Anna University Professor. The position is different with regard to the certificate issued by the SITRA expert on a sample of the appellant's product. The authenticity of this certificate is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, the department has accepted SITRA as "renowned authority on textile matters" and "dedicated to textile research". SITRA's certificate is to the effect that the assessee's yarn is of core spun category and cannot be termed as single or double yarn. This conclu....