SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 665

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. SAHAI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.
M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Bilwara, Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise,Jaipur, Rajasthan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 4154 of 1988
Decided on 9-5-1995.

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, BHASKAR PRADHAN, C.B.Babu, D.A.DAVE, DILIP TANDON, MANIK KARANJAVALA, N.K.Verma, NANDINI GORE, R.N.KARANJAWALA

Headnote:

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Goods Manufactured - Claim Benefit - Yarn are equal in weight then such one of those fibers predominance of which would render such yarn fall that sub-item or Item hereafter in this Explanation referred to as applicable sub item or Item among sub items and Items – Read with relevant notification if any for time being in force issued Central Excise Rules involves highest amount of duty shall be deemed to predominant in such yarn and accordingly such yarn shall be deemed to fall applicable sub item or Items case may be - Since non cellulosic fiber predominated in weight yarn manufactured by appellant- Company was liable to be classified First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act – Appellant Company however claimed benefit of exemption from payment of whole amount duty of excise livable on such yarn in view of notification – Held, Explanation sub item which reliance was placed on behalf of appellant does not throw any light on dispute raised in this case - This explanation only enumerates various types of fibers and deals with cases where two or more of said fibers in any yarn are equal in weight - Explanation introduces deeming provision to decide under which sub-item or items in which such blended yarn will be classified for purpose of levying duty - But that will not decide controversy raised in this case - Here court have case where appellant has produced yarn in which polypropylene predominates - Because predominance of polypropylene goods produced will be classified as non cellulosic spun yarn - Exemption notification however is confined to polypropylene spun yarn only - It does not speak of any blended yarn in which polypropylene predominates or is equal in weight with any other fiber - It has been noted in order of Judicial Member that no proof was adduced to show that in commercial parlance such blended yarn was known as polypropylene yarn – Therefore there is no reason to hold that blended yarn produced by appellant comprising of polypropylene fiber and viscose fiber will answer description polypropylene spun yarn as given in exemption notification - It is also significance that subsequently in two separate notifications were issued granting exemption from duty - Eons related to polypropylene yarn and other in respect of blended yarn - Lastly it is for assesses to establish that goods manufactured by him come within ambit of exemption notification - Since it is case of exemption from duty there is no question of any liberal construction to extend term and scope of exemption notification - Such exemption notification must be strictly construed and assesses should bring himself squarely within ambit of notification - No extended meaning can be given to exempted item to enlarge scope of exemption granted by notification - Appeal Dismissed

JUDGMENT

SEN, J.—M/s.Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Bhilwara, has come up in appeal against an order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The case in the Tribunal was heard by a Bench comprising of the Senior Vice-President and the Judicial Member. There was difference of opinion between the two members on the following question:-

Whether the blended yarn in which polypropylene fibre predominates was or was not entitled to benefit under Central Excise Notification No. 322/77-CE dated 1-2-1977?

2. The matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal who agreed with the view expressed by the Judicial Member that the term polypropylene spun yarn used in the Notification No.332/77/CE dated 1-12-1977 means yarn spun out of polypropylene fibres and will not include blended yarn manufactured by the appellant-Company comprising of 52% propylene and 48% viscose.

3. The appellant has contended that the majority view of the Tribunal is erroneous having regard to scope of the Notification and also the tariff description of goods in Item 18E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1994.

4. Before examining this question, the facts of the case may be noted in brief. Tariff Item No.18 at the material point of time stood as under :-

"18. I. Man-made fibres, other than mineral fibres :

(i) Non-cellulosic

(ii) Cellulosic

II. Man-made filament yarns :

(i) Non-cellulosic -

(a) other than textured

(b) textured

Explanation.- "Textured yarn" means yarn that has been processed to introduce crimps, coils, loops or curls along the length of the filaments and shall include bulked yarn and stretch yarn.

(ii) Cellulosic

(iii) Metallized.

III. Cellulosic spun yarn :

Yarn in which man-made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight and, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power -

(i) not containing or containing not more than one-sixth by weight of non-cellulosic fibre calculated on the total fibre content,

(ii) containing more than one-sixth by weight of non-cellulosic fibre calculated on the total fibre content.

Explanation I.- "Count" means the size of grey yarn (excluding any sizing material) expressed in English Court.

Explanation II.- For multiple fold yarn, "Count" means the count of the basic single yarn.

Explanation III.- Where two or more of the following fibres, that is to say,

(a) man-made fibre of cellulosic origin;

(b) cotton;

(c) wool or acrylic fibre, or both;

(d) silk (including silk noil;

(e) jute (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta fibre);

(f) man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin, other than acrylic filer;

(g) flax;

(h) ramie;

in any yarn are equal in weight, then such one of those fibres, the predominance of which would render such yarn fall under that sub-item or Item (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as the applicable sub-item or Item), among the sub-items and Items Nos. 18.III, 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D, 18E, 18F. I and 18F.II, which read, with the relevant notification, if any, for the time being in force issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, involves the highest amount of duty, shall be deemed to the predominant in such yarn and accordingly such yarn shall be deemed to fall under the applicable sub-item or Item, as the case may be,

IV. Non-cellulosic Wastes, all sorts.

... ... ... ...

18E. Non-cellulosic spun yarn.-

Spun (discontinuous) yarn which man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin, other than acrylic fibre, predominate in weight and, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power.

Explanation.- Explanation III under sub-item III of Item No. 18 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to this Item as it applies in relation to that Item."

5. During the year 1978-79, the appellant-Company manufactured non-cellulosic spun yarn of the following composition :-

52% polypropylene fibre

48% Viscose fibre

Since non-cellulosic fibre predominated in weig
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top