- (1.) The appellant is a composite unit engaged in the manufacture of man-made fabric falling under the erstwhile Tariff Head 18-III/18-E/22 and Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the above process, it manufactures single ply yarn which is then used in doubling or multifolding the same in a continuous process in their factory. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay central excise duty on the manufacture of the single ply yarn or at the stage when the single ply yarn is converted into double ply yarn/multi fold yarn when the same is cleared from the factory. The stand of the revenue is that on the manufacture of the single ply yarn the same is exigible to duty, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty at the stage. The appellant contends that the single ply yarn manufactured by it is not cleared from its factory but is used in a continuous process in converting the same into a double or multifold yarn. Therefore, it is liable to pay duty at the stage when so finished double or multifold yarn is cleared from the factory. The authorities under the Act have negatived the said claim of the appellant and have demanded the duty to be paid at the stage when single ply yarn is manufactured by the appellant, obviously because the rate of duty at that stage on the relevant date was more than what the appellant would have to pay when it cleared as double or multifold yarn from its factory.
(2.) The tribunal in appeal filed by the appellant rejected the said appeal basing its finding on two judgments of this Court in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1996 (82) ELT 442 (SC)) and Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Banswara Syntex Ltd., (1996 (88) ELT 645 (SC)). The tribunal also held it has been following these judgments in many other identical cases including that of one of the appellants before it and it found no reason to differ from its consistent view on this question.
(3.) In this appeal before us Mr. D. A. Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants fairly conceded that the case of the appellant is covered against it by the above-cited two judgments. He, however, sought to place reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Polyset Corporation, (2000 (115) ELT 41 (SC)) and tried to persuade us to refer this issue to a larger bench contending that in view of the judgment of this Court in Polyset Corporation (supra) the earlier view of this Court in the case of Bhilwara (supra) as well as Banswara Syntex (supra) requires reconsideration.;