S.S. Sekhon, Member (T) - (1.)WHEN the matter is called the appellants were not represented since the issue is pending for a long time, the DR was heard and the appeals are taken up for decision. The issue involved in both these cases is the levy of duty on the process of sizing of yarn, by considering the same to be a process of manufacture.
The period involved is subsequent to the amendment of the chapter notes 2 to chapter applicable, ie chapter 52 or & chapter 55. The Show cause notices, issued alleged that notification 35/95 CE dated 16/3/95 as amended by notification No. 84/95 dated 18/5/95 was not applicable to the applicant herein.

(2.)The lower authorities did not accept the applicants contentions that the sizing of yarn was not a process of manufacture in view of Supreme Courts decision in the case of J.K. Ltd 1987 52 E.LT 234 Supreme Court. Hence these appeals.
After considering chapter note 1 to 52 and note 2 to chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff schedule introduced by the budget of 1995 & finding that in the present grounds of appeal, no grounds are taken except the reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in 1957 32 ELT S.C and the decision of M/s Swan Mills of the Bombay high Court reported in 1995 56 ELT 44 Bombay the decision to uphold levy of duty by the lower authority on finding that the process mentioned of sizing when conducted on duty paid yarn would amount to manufacture can not be faulted. In this view of the matter and the wording of Section 2f (ii) of the Central Excise Act 1944 which reads as follows :

Which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of 10 (the First Schedule) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to 11 (manufacture; or)

(3.)THE process of sizing yarn would be covered under the terms the fact that by sizing of yarn manufacturer would result duty would be liable to be paid the exemption under notification 35/95 CE dated 16/3/95 has amended being not available. No merits are found in these appeals, the same are therefore dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court on 25/06/2004)