D.M. Vasavada, Member (J)

1.As common issues of facts and law are involved in all these appeals, we dispose of all these appeals by this common order. In Appeal No. E/A. 1804/84-D, the respondents receive duty-paid yarn from their customers for the purpose of doubling/twisting/dipping and after carrying out these processes, yarn was returned to their customers and according to the adjudicating authority (the Assistant Collector), after these processes are carried out, a new product commercially known in the market as 'Dipped Nylon Tyre Yarn' emerges. The appellant contends that even after the processes, yarn remains yarn for all purposes. The Assistant Collector has held in his findings that a different product, known in the market by distinct constitution, use and marketability emerges and is, therefore, correctly classifiable under T.1.68.

2. In Appeal No. E 1807/84-D, the respondents received yarn from their customers and they carried out triple twisting of fibre yarn as under :

"50 s Grey Yarn Terene/Polyester with 120 Denier Viscose

50 s 100% Polyester with 120 Denier Rayon Yarn.

40 s 52/48 Viscose/Polyester yarn with 120 Denier Viscose Yarn."

3. The Assistant Collector has held that the product, that finally emerges, is known in the market parlance as T.T.F. yarn and it is different from the constituent yarn and is classifiable under T.1.68.

4. In Appeal No. E. 1809/84-D, the respondents were doubling rayon filament yarn with non-cellulosic spun yarn and according to the Assistant Collector, the twisted yarn is classifiable under T.I.68. These respondents are also doing process work only.

5. In Appeal No. E 1832/84-D, the respondents received yarn from outside parties for making it into multiply yarn ranging from 4 ply upto 25 ply yarn and according to the assessee, it remains yarn, but according to the Assistant Collector such multi-fold yarn twisted together into various strengths are known in the market as nylon/rayon cords and are used for tyre making and not for weaving, sewing or rope making and are, therefore classifiable under T.I. 68.

6. In Appeal No. E. 1837/84-D, the respondent received, from their customers, duty-paid rayon filament yarn and 100% polyester yarn and after doubling it returned to the customers. According to the Assistant Collector, the respondents have admitted, at the time of personal hearing, that the resultant doubled yarn cannot be classified under T.1.18E and he has held that as a result of such process of doubling, a new yarn, having combination of filament and spun yarn, emerges which is classifiable under T.I. 68.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, all these respondents went in appeal and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, by a common Order-in-Appeal No. M-817-856/BI-249-271/BII-132-145/TH-51-53/84 (whereby he disposed of 40 appeals including appeals preferred by these respondents), allowed the appeals and held that the respondents are doing job work only and they will be liable to pay excise duty in respect of job work carried out by them only.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred these appeals.

9. We heard L.A. Sh. E.P. Bharucha with L.A. Sh. H.N. Vakil for the respondents, Swan Mills Ltd. in Appeals Nos. E. 1804/84-D, E. 1809/84-D, E1832/84-D and E. 1837/84-D and Shri R.C. Pahuja representative of the respondent in E.A/No. 1807/84-D, and Shri L.C. Chakravorty, Ld. J.D.R. for the Revenue.

10. The impugned order was a common order whereby 40 appeals (including these five appeals) were disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) and in that order, the Collector (Appeals) has discussed only the various judgments of different High Courts and also has discussed meaning and interpretation of the words 'manufacture' and 'job work', but he has not discussed factual aspects of any of the appeals. So, it is not a speaking order. Some other appeals, preferred against the same order, have been remanded back for deciding de novo. But in the