KERALA SPINNERS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1991-6-22
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 24,1991

Kerala Spinners Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) - (1.) THE classification of cellulosic spun yarn manufactured by blending viscose fibre of cellulosic origin (predominant in weight) with non -cellulosic waste (falling under TI 18(iv) is the subject -matter in dispute in this appeal - the appellants' claim classification under TI 18 -111(1) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff which reads as "Cellulosic spun yarn - yarn in which man made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight and..1) not containing any man made fibres of non -cellulosic origin." While the Department has classified the yarn under TI 18 -IH(ii) as "containing man made fibres of non -cellulosic origin."
(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : - The appellants manufacture various kinds of cellulosic spun yarn falling under Tariff Item 18(III) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. For the first time they began to manufacture a new item of yarn viscose/Non -cellulosic synthetic Waste Yarn falling under Tariff Item 18(III)(i) i.e. man made fibres of cellulosic origin which predominates in weight with blended non -cellulosic synthetic waste, coming under 18(IV) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The appellant filed a Classification List No. 28 on 16 -11 -1983 in respect of the new product. The Superintendent of Central Excise by his letter dated 19 -11 -1983 informed the appellant that the above classification is not correct as the waste which was declared as non -cellulosic synthetic waste is of non -cellulosic origin. The appellants replied that the impugned yarn is made by blending man made fibre of cellulosic origin which predominates in weight and non -cellulosic waste under 18(IV) is another raw material. It was also submitted that man made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight and it contains only raw materials of non cellulosic waste mentioned in 18(IV) and non -cellulosic man made fibres coming under 18(1) is totally absent.
(3.) THE appellants pointed out that non -cellulosic synthetic waste is one of the raw material used in the manufacture of new product is itself classified under tariff item 18(IV) by the Bombay Customs Authorities. The appellants purchased the same from M/s. Adithya Mills Ltd., who bought it from the importers M/s. A.R. Trading Company vide Bill of Entry No. 002536 dated 10 -10 -1982. The goods imported were classified by the Bombay Customs Authorities at the time of import under Tariff Item 18(IV). In the manufacture of new product the appellants did not use any man made fibre coming under Item 18(1). Therefore, the appellants' new yarn in which man made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight did not contain any man made fibre coming under 18(1). Thereafter, the Superintendent wrote to the appellants calling for proof that the goods received were synthetic waste and also whether the waste was subjected to any recycling and whether the yarn can be manufactured out of the waste without any recycling. It was replied that waste is not subjected to any recycling and the same is used for blending for manufacture of yarn. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise wrote to the appellant by letter dated 9th Dec, 1983 regarding the classification of materials. This was replied to by letter dated 27 -12 -1983, pointing out that the term staple fibre as defined by the Central Board of Excise includes all artificial fibre whose staple is small, that is to say which are short in length (generally 1 to 6 inches) is manufactured by cutting long filament fibres into pre -determined, requisite lengths. The waste contains no fibre of pre -determined length. It was also submitted that man made fibre of non -cellulosic origin coming under 18(1) is completely absent. However, the Asstt. Collector classified the yarn under Item 18(III)(ii).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.