ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeals arise against the composite order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi under appeal Nos. 65-66/CE/JPR/88, dated 9-6-1988 confirming the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs & Central Excise Division, Jaipur.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant herein is a Company which was set up by a technocrat entrepreneur holding Doctorate degree in Engineering and it was the first enterprise of its type in the country in the direction of import-substitution.
3. The appellants applied for L4 Licence wherein the description of the goods was given as “Thermoplastic Filament Yarn for industrial application”. The reason for such description being given was that all the manufacturing processes were contemplated to be undertaken by the appellant-Company, such process being the following:
(a) thermo-plastic polyester chips are fed to the hopper; (b) from the hopper, the chips are fed to the extruder where these are melted and forwarded to the extrusion system; (c) extruded continuous filament is obtained; (d) such filament is then subjected to stretching process; (e) stretched filament is known and used as yarn.
Accordingly, Central Excise L4 Licence for Thermoplastic filament yarn was granted on 21-3-1985. As the Company could not instal the plant for undertaking the process of stretching due to financial difficulties, it addressed to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise on 29-4-1985 making it known that the extruded filament for being marketed was to be applied with finishing oil and then wound on paper tubes. On 23-5-1985 a sample of the said goods was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner who has given his report on 2-8-1985 as follows:
The sample is in the form of hanks of lustures, white filaments made entirely of Polyester. The filaments are not drawn (attenuated) and are being capable to be stretched further for subsequent processes. The draw ratio of the sample is about 2.8:1. As per leaflet literature of Cenka plastics Arnite T 06200 is polybutylene, terphthalate type of thermoplastic polyester (Injection moulding & extrusion grade) which is claimed to have been used by the party for manufacturing of the goods represented by the sample.
As the sample is in the form of fine filaments having cross-sectional dimension less than 1 mm. Although resulted from extrusion of polymer chips it may not qualify as an article of plastic falling under T.I.15A(ii) of C.E.T. (CBE &C Tariff Advice No. 12/1972, dated 22-6-1972).
As the filaments are in the undrawn stage it may not qualify the definition of yarns (Filament yarn) in terms of IS 1324-1966 and therefore may not be strictly considered as filament yarn following under (sic) 18II(i)(a) of C.E.T…”
4. On 14-8-1985 fresh classification list was filed by the appellant-Company, on the advice of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise classifying the goods under Tariff Item No. 68 and seeking exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 77/85-CE, dated 17-3-1985. In the fresh ALA Licence the description of the goods was shown as Thermoplastic unstretched filament. The Superintendent of Central Excise also granted a certificate on 3-9-1985 certifying that the appellant-Company has been issued a L4 Licence to manufacture Thermoplastic unstretched filament under Tariff Item 68 and provisionally exempting the company from payment of excise duty under exemption Notification No. 77/85-CE, dated 17-3-1985 as amended by Notification No. 118/85 upto the value of Rs. 20.00 lakhs only. The appellant-Company was addressed on 1-10-1985 asking for particulars about the end-use of the subject-goods of the appellant. The Company was required to furnish printed literature, copy of order/invoice, etc.
5. Without waiting for a reply to the communication dated 1-10-1985 a show cause notice dated 10-10-1985 was issued alleging non-payment of duty amounting to Rs. 7,26,811.90 for the reason that the product had to be classified as man-made filament yarn under Tariff Item No. 18II(i)(a). The appellant-Company replied on 22-11-1985 stating that its product has several end uses in Industrial Textiles. The appellant stated that the product was first stretched, twisted or crimped. They also manufacture the Bright unstretched filaments which are used for designs/patterns in different textile application after processing on stretching machine. They submitted that they do not have any printed literature on that product. However, they submitted a copy of IS 1324-1966 defining yarn and then filament and also enclosed a copy of the invoice. On 29-1-1986, the appellant-Company was informed that its product was to be classified under Item No. 18II(i)(a) and the duty should be paid accordingly on the clearances till date. The request of the appellant-Company on 13-1-1986 for clearances being allowed provisionally under Rule 9B was rejected.
6. Personal hearing was granted to the appellant-Company on 21-2-1986 and the Assistant Collector passed the order-in-original No. 9/1986-Val./C.No.V(68)17/90/85, dated 28-2-1986/3-3-1986, holding that the subject-goods were classifiable under Tariff Item No.l8II(i)(a) as polyester filament yarn.
7. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, bearing appeal No. 74-CE/APPL/-JPR/86 on 27-3-1986. The said appeal assailed the Assistant Collector’s order on the following grounds:-
(i) for relying on the description of the goods as given in the registration with the Directorate of Industries, without caring to find out what the correct nature of the goods actually produced is;
(ii) for ignoring the fact that the description of the goods in the said registration cannot be sole criterion for determining the classification of goods for purposes of Central Excise Tariff;
(iii) for concluding that merely because the raw material was polyester chips, the finished goods were filament yarn;
(iv) for not making a distinction between “filament” and “filament yarn” and in ignoring the fact that filament unless subjected to the process of stretching does not become filament yarn;
(v) for ignoring and rejecting the Chemical Examiner’s report without valid reasons, and reference to either technical literature or trade practice or commercial parlance;
(vi) for mis-interpreting the said ISI Specification;
(vii) for not considering the form in which the goods are marketed to be such as to lead to the conclusion that has been drawn;
(viii) for not considering the fact whether or not the buying textile units undertook the process of stretching; and
(ix) for ignoring the ratio and force of the various instructions issued by the C.B.E.C.
(B) The impugned order is fallacious, illogical, invalid and not maintainable. (C) As evident from the sequences of events, the impugned order is not bonafide.
8. The earlier show cause notice dated 10-10-1985 was followed by another show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 demanding duty of Rs. 7,70,209.55 for the period from October, 1985 to March, 1986 and personal hearing was also granted to the appellant-Company. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise in his adjudication order C.No. V/68/38/CE-IV/7642, dated 9-9-1987 confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,60,160.25 on 11,464.4 kgs. polyester filament yarn.
9. The appellant-Company preferred an appeal against this order on 22-2-1987 and alongwith the said appeal an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of adjudged amount of duty was also filed. As orders on the said application were not being passed, the appellant-Company filed C.W.P. No. 3489/87 on 10-12-1987 before the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi for stay and interim relief and the High Court by order dated 21-4-1988 directed the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi to hear and dispose of the appeal within six weeks and accordingly, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 12-5-1988.
10. The Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi passed the impugned order on 9-6-1988 rejecting the appeals and confirming the order of the Assistant Collector. It is against this composite order that the present appeals have been filed before this Tribunal.
11. Shri N.C. Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended before us that as the appellant could not install the machinery for manufacture of yarn due to unavoidable circumstances, the appellant-Company made the position known to the department on 29-4-1985 and it informed the Superintendent of Central Excise that the goods manufactured is an article of plastic under Tariff Item 15A(2) attracting Notification No. 149/82-CE, dated 22-4-1982 which exempts fully the payment of Central Excise duty. He contends that the relevant goods cannot assume the character of yarn and in support of his arguments he placed reliance on an extract from page 517 of “Text Book of Polymer Science” by Fred W. Billmeyer, Jr. “The filaments as spun are almost completely unoriented. Most of the stretching that occurs between the spinneret and win-dup does so while the filament is still molten, and there is-sufficient time for molecular orientation to relax before the fibre cools and crystallizes. Consequently a separate drawing step is necessary to produce the orientation of the crystallites necessary for optimum physical properties. In the drawing step somewhat lower speeds are required than can be achieved in spinning, so the two steps are usually done separately”. He stressed that a separate drawing step was necessary to produce orientation of the crystallites necessary for optimum physical properties. According to him the appellants’ goods are in unoriented form and they have necessarily to be subjected to stretching.
12. Shri Jain next referred to the Book on “Man Made Fabrics” by Moncrief at page 436 and 437 to illustrate the flow sheets for manufacture of terylene. According to Shri Jain, the filaments are not drawn and they are capable of stretching further for subsequent process and he relies upon the test memo, and the Chemical Examiner’s report that the filament may not be strictly considered as filament yarn falling under Tariff Item No. 18II(i)(a). He also relies upon the Indian Standard Specification No. 18:1324-1966 which defines yarn as follows:
“Yarn – A continuous strand of textile fibres or filaments with or without twist suitable for plying, knitting, braiding, weaving, or otherwise intertwining to form a textile end-product.”
He also referred us to the provisional exemption from payment of excise duty under exemption Notification No. 77/85-CE, dated 17-3-1985 amended by Notification No. 118/85, dated 8-8-1985 classifying the appellant’s goods under Tariff Item 68 of C.E.T. Shri Jain placed reliance on Board’s letter F.No. 11/4/70 CX-2, dated 17-4-1971 dealing with Polyamide (Nylon) filament yarn and wastes which reads as follows :-
“It is understood that the yarn like thing coming out of spinnerets is taken to another section of the factory for stretching where it is stretched from about 3-5- times to 4 times. The Board is advised that it is only after this stretching that the product CETs the essential criteria of yarn, and therefore, it is only after stretching that it can be treated as yarn, falling under Item No. 18. Accordingly any waste which arises upto the stage of stretching cannot be treated as yarn waste and will not, therefore, attract duty under Item No. 18.”
Reference was also made to the Board’s letter F.No. 50/7/74 CX-2, dated 31-10-1975 which reads as follows :-
“He (the Chief Chemist) held the view that yarn/fibres which had undergone stretching would stand classified under T.I.No. 18 and the unstretched yarn would fall outside the purview of Item 18 and similarly its wastes.”
13. Shri Jain refers to the decision reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. 180 – Union Carbide Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Ors. – for the proposition that acceptance of words in trade and their popular meaning should be taken as their meaning. In paragraph 13 of the above cited decision, at page 184, it was held that when an item of goods is specified by the Indian Standard Institution, that is certainly evidence of the fact that the said item is known as such in trade or commerce. The next citation placed before us is the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. – 1977 (1) E.L.T. 199. In this case three different companies manufacturing vegetable product known as’ Vanaspati’ challenged the legality of the imposition of excise duty on what was called by the taxing authorities, processing of refined oil from raw oil. At paragraph 12 at page 203 of the above judgment, the Supreme Court held that the view of the Indian Standard Institution in regard to how a particular product is known to Indian trade should be preferred to the views of foreign authors and experts. The learned Counsel next referred to the decision in Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. – 1980 (6) E.L.T. 249, at paragraph 10 wherein it was held that the test to be applied in order to decide whether twine is different from yarn is whether in common parlance and as understood by people in the trade, twine is different from yarn. The characteristics of yarn are:
(a) It should be spun strand. (b) Such strand should be primarily meant for use in weaving, knitting or rope , making.
14. Shri Jain also brought to our notice that the words “after processing or stretching machine” found in the appellant’s letter dated 22-11-1985 have been omitted by Assistant Collector in his order and also by the Collector (Appeal) in his order. Shri Jain contended further that the Chemical Examiner’s report which is a valuable piece of evidence has been totally disregarded and the onus has been shifted to the appellant to show that yarn is unsuitable to form textile end-product. Shri Jain also referred to the certificate dated 11-5-1988 of one Shri B.L. Deopura, Asst. Professor, Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, certifying that the product manufactured by the appellant is Polyester unstretched multi-filament and he further certifies that the unstretched filaments cannot be used .for weaving, knitting, braiding or intertwining to textiles without undergoing the process of stretching. Shri Jain’s grievance is that this certificate has not been referred to at all in the impugned order of the Collector.
15. Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, the learned JDR in his arguments strenuously contended that the goods are man-made filament yarn falling under Tariff Item 18II(i)(a). He contends that the end use of the product is not relevant. He also submits that the Assistant Collector in his order says that the filament can be further stretched which means that there was some stretching. Central Excise Tariff Item No. 18II(i)(a) reads as follows :-
“Man Made Filament Yarn
(i) Non-Cellulosic
(a) Other than textured”
The contention of the learned JDR is that the words “stretched or drawn” are not used, but only ‘textured yarn” falling under Item 18II(i)(b) has been explained as including stretch yarn. He submits that in the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, only cellulosic yarn was dealt with and not filament yarn. He submits that the goods in question in this case are continuous filament yarn and even the Collector (Appeals) refers to continuous filament yarn in his order. Shri Chakraborthy further contends that the goods are in final saleable form because they are spun at high speed and they become partially oriented yarn (POY). He argues that there is no further treatment of stretching or drawing as in the process of spinning at high speed. The filament is stretched by air drags and not stretched on machine. Regarding the Chemical Examiner’s report the learned JDR refers to the words “Filaments are not drawn and are being capable to be stretched further for subsequent process” to mean that there has been some stretching.
16. The learned JDR also attacks the Chemical Examiner’s report on the ground that the Chemical Examiner is biased by the Indian Standard Specification which does not refer to stretching or drawing. The Chemical Examiner speaks of drawing or stretching based upon the end use of yarn. The further attack on the Chemical Examiner’s report is that it is too vague and confusing and not conclusive. He also submits that the Chemical Examiner’s report is not warranted by the description in Indian Standard Specification. According to him the Chemical Examiner completely overlooked the fact that there can be partially drawn or partially stretched yarn and according to the Chemical Examiner, drawn yarn means only fully drawn or fully stretched yarn. Shri Chakraborthy further contends that the Indian Standard Specification does not cover partially oriented yarn. He relies upon the decision reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 234 Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., in which it was held that partially oriented yarn are goods for the purpose of dutiability under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 18II(i)(a). He next cited the decision in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 100 – Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III v. Orkay Polyester for the same proposition. Shri Chakraborthy also refers to the Text Book of Textiles: Fibre to Fabric by Dr. Bernard P. Carbman for the alternate argument that even undrawn yarn is yarn and the intermediate stage products are also yarn. An extract from page 74 of the text book reads as follows :-
“One alternative to this approach is to produce filaments without attenuating them after they emerge from the spinneret, thereby producing undrawn (UD) yarn. Since the fibre is not subjected to any significant linear orientation, it must be specially handled by meticulous packaging and by controlling the humidity, temperature, and oxygen to retain its viscous state. The fibre producer to texturizer subsequently draws and textures the yarn, but it must be done within a relatively short period of time of about two weeks hi order to obtain the desired results. The fragility of this technique provides much risk.”
He also refers to the ‘Encyclopaedia of Textiles, Fibres, and Nonwoven Fabrics’ by Martin Grayson. The relevant portion is at page 387.
“For continuous-filament yarns, the spinning threadline, which normally consists of 15-70 filaments, either is wound at 1000-3500 m/min on bobbins as feedstock for subsequent drawtwisting or drawtexturing, or it is drawn directly at high speed (2500-4000 m/min), usually over hot rolls, and wound on the final saleable package. In textile yarns, the most significant commercial advancement has been the development of high speed spinning processes that yield partially oriented yarn (POY), which is the preferred feed-stock for subsequent drawtexturing…”
What is ‘drawing’ has been defined in page 389 as “Drawing is the stretching of fibres of low molecular orientation to several times their original length”.
17. The learned JDR contends that there is no estoppel in this case merely by virtue of correspondence between the Superintendent and the assessee, when the classification in question has been decided by the Assistant Collector, who is the competent authority. He relies upon the order in Excise Appeal No. 465/88-A C.C.E., Bombay v. Wipro Information Technology Ltd.
18. Regarding the Indian Standard Specification the learned JDR submits that the Indian Standard Specification cannot be relied upon for the reason that it is of the year 1964 and, therefore, out-dated in the context of new technology prevalent in India and thisis relied upon only for quality control and not for classification. He stresses that when the Indian Standard Specification tabulates nomenclature then it will be of greater value.
19. Regarding the letter of the Assistant Professor, IIT, New Delhi dated 11-5-1988, the learned JDR points out that the certificate itself says that the goods are polyester unstretched multi-filaments and does not say that the goods are not yarn. He says that the Department has no quarrel with this certificate. Regarding description in the invoice, he contends that too much reliance should not be placed upon the description given by the assessee in the invoice. He refers to the decision of Madras High Court – 1986 (26) E.L.T. 211 – Brakes India Ltd., Madras v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras and Ors. He refers to paragraph 15 of the above judgment to show that the test of a new name may be sometimes deceptive and that new name is not relevant or reliable factor in deciding correct classification of goods. It is the character or use of goods and not new name that should be relied upon in deciding classification. He next refers to the decision reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 480 (SC) – Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. at para 13, to show that Board Circulars, Tariff Advice, Trade Notice, etc., are not relevant factors.
20. Regarding Excise Appeal No. 1981/88-D, the learned JDR points out that the Counsel for the appellant had submitted that he had nothing to say in regard to the Assistant Collector’s order dated 19-9-1987. He also pointed out that no submissions had been made by Shri Jain regarding “waste” which the Assistant Collector has confirmed as dutiable leaving only recalculation to the Superintendent.
21. Shri Jain in his reply urged that the arguments of the JDR that the goods in question are partially oriented yarn is a new one which has been raised by the Respondent for the first time before the Tribunal. According to him, the parameters of POY are different from fully drawn yarn (FDY) and Undrawn Yarn (UDY). He submits that POY is related to factors like:-
(a) Spinning speed (b) Draw ratio (c) Shelf life
Shri Jab also urges that if the Chemical Examiner’s report, invoice description, Indian Standard Specification, etc. are to be eschewed, there is no material left to be relied upon by the adjudicating authority to come to the conclusion that the goods are yarn. He further submits that the description of the goods in the invoice is the trade and commercial description. Even in the Show Cause Notice dated 10-10-1985, there is no reason for concluding that the goods are yarn when the Department itself accepts that the goods are in the undrawn stage. Regarding the arguments on waste, Shri Jain submits that if his contention that the goods are not yarn is accepted, then the demand for duty on waste will also fail and it will go under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
22. We see great force in the objections of Shri N.C. Jain that the argument that the goods are POY is a new point urged for the first time before the ‘Tribunal. It was never the case of the Department earlier that the goods in question are POY. We also see great force in his contention that if the Chemical Examiner’s report, invoice description and I.S. Specification are to be ignored, there is no material for the Department to rely upon to come to the conclusion that the goods are “yarn”.
23. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. The Chemical Examiner’s report dated 2-8-1985 clearly states that the filaments are undrawn and that they are capable of being stretched for subsequent processes. He has further opined that as the filaments are in the undrawn stage, they may not satisfy the definition of yarn (filament yarn) in terms of Indian Standard 1324-1966 and may not strictly be considered as filament yarn falling under Item No. 18II(i)(a) CET. It is true that the Chemical Examiner’s job is only to test goods and report the results of the test. He is not to opine on how to classify goods under the tariff. That part of his report must, therefore, be ignored. However, he is within his jurisdiction when he reports that the subject goods do not conform to the definition of yarn (filament yarn) in the relevant Indian Standard. Let us examine this further. We have earlier extracted the definition of yarn in I.S. 1324-1966. According to this, a yarn, in the context of the present case, is a continuous strand of filaments with or without twist suitable for plying, knitting, braiding, weaving, or otherwise intertwining to form a textile end-product. The definition goes on to say that yarn occurs in several forms of which filament yarn is one and it has been defined as a yarn composed of continuous filaments assembled with or without twist. Evidently, filament is not synonymous with filament yarn. It is only a continuous strand of filaments with or without twist which is suitable for plying, knitting, braiding, weaving or otherwise intertwining to form a textile end-product that will qualify for the definition of filament yarn. It has been the appellants’ case right from the beginning, as evidenced by their letter dated 22-11-1985 to the Superintendent, that their product had to be processed on a stretching machine before it is put to use. It has been their contention that the product had several end uses in industrial textiles but it had to be first stretched, twisted or crimped. The certificate dated 11-5-1988 of Dr. B.L. Deopura, Assistant Professor, Department of Textile Technology of the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, clearly states that the product manufactured by the appellants is polyester unstretched multi-filaments which cannot be used for weaving, knitting, braiding etc., without undergoing the process of stretching. As we have seen, according to the relevant Indian Standard, it is only a continuous strand of filaments suitable for plying, knitting, braiding etc., that would constitute a filament yarn. If a given sample which has not undergone the process of stretching is not suitable for the aforesaid purposes, as has been certified by the LIT. Professor in the present case, it obviously does not satisfy the definition of filament yarn according to the Indian Standard. It is well settled that for the purpose of understanding how expressions are understood in trade, commerce and industry, the definitions of expressions published by the Indian Standards Institution is a good guide (See Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills – 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) reiterated recently in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. – 1988 (37) E.L.T. 480 (SC). It has also to be noted that the Department on its part has not produced any evidence to rebut the evidence in the shape of the IIT Professor’s certificate. Hie report of the Chemical Examiner does not support the case of the Revenue.
24. Reliance has been placed by the DR on certain passages in the book “Textiles : Fibre to Fabric”, Fifth Edition by Dr. Bernard P. Corbman. This talks of production of filaments without attenuating after they emerge from the spinnerette thereby producing undrawn yarn; further that since the fibre is not subjected to any significant linear orientation, it must be specially handled by meticulous packaging and by controlling the humidity, temperature, and oxygen to retain its viscous state. The fibre producer or texturizer subsequently draws and textures the yarn, but it must be done within a relatively short period of time of about two weeks in order to obtain the desired results. The Department has not shown by any evidence that the product manufactured by the appellant is of the nature described in the said passage. If indeed it was of such nature, it should not have been difficult for the department to produce evidence to that effect. On the other hand, as may be seen from the appellants’ letter dated 22-11-1985 to the Superintendent, the subject products are claimed to be used for designs/patterns in different textile applications. It has not been claimed by them nor shown by the Revenue, that the subject product is for subsequent texturisation.
25. We have perused the extracts filed by the DR from the “Encyclopaedia of Textiles, Fibres, and Nonwoven Fabrics” published by John Wiley & Sons and do not find anything therein which supports the case of the Revenue.
26. It is the appellants’ claim that their product is undrawn yarn which, as we have seen, is also the report of the Chemical Examiner. The appellants have filed extracts from the book “Man Made Fibres” by Moncrief. In a schematic diagram, the book shows that undrawn yarn has to be put through a draw twist machine before it becomes filament yarn. It is seen from the memorandum of appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) that though in the application for Central Excise L4 Licence, the description of the goods was given as “Thermoplastic filament yarns for industrial applications” (the reason for such description being, according to the appellants, that they were contemplating to undertake all manufacturing processes required for production of such yarn), in reality, they stated that due to financial difficulties they could not instal the machinery required for the process of stretching extruded continuous filaments from the extrusion system. The Revenue does not seem to have investigated this claim nor has it produced any evidence to rebut the contention that the appellants did not have the machinery required for stretching the filaments emerging from the extrusion system. The fact that the filaments were not stretched is borne out, as we have noted, by the Chemical Examiner’s report.
27. The book “Textbook of Polymer Science” by Fred W. Billmeyer, Jr., published by John Wiley and Sons, relied upon by the appellants states that the filaments as spun are almost completely unoriented. Most of the stretching that occurs between the spinnerette and windup does so while the filament is still molten, and there is sufficient time for molecular orientation to relax before the fibre cools and crystallizes. Consequently, a separate drawing step is necessary to produce the orientation of the crystallites necessary for optimum physical properties. This shows that the extruded filaments have to be subjected to a separate process of drawing. As we have seen, the appellants’ claim that they did not have the machinery necessary for stretching the extruded filaments, has not been investigated or rebutted by the Department and the Chemical Examiner’s report shows that the product manufactured by the appellants is undrawn filaments. Though the circulars, tariff advices etc., issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs would not constitute authorities in the matter of classification, it is of significance to note that the Board also had, on examination of the subject, come to the conclusion that only after stretching would the filament coming out of the spinnerette CET the essential character of filament yarn.
28. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the product manufactured by the appellants was not polyester filament yarn falling under Item No. 18n(i)(a), CET.
29. It follows that wastes arising in the course of manufacture of the subject product would also not fall under the said tariff item.
30. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.