ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the yarn made out of staple fibre and filament yarn in which the staple fibre did not predominate. The appellants had argued that doubling or multi-folding of yarn did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. They also submitted that the staple fibre and filament yarn were duty paid and no duty could be charged again on the doubled yarn manufactured out of duty paid single yarn. Subsequently, they also pleaded that their product was not doubled yarn but twine. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had held that the goods in question were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 5506.29 of the Central Excise Tariff and that as regards the extended period of limitation when calculated from the date of filing of the RT 12 return the demand was within time.
2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.
3. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR submitted that the appellants had initially classified their goods as doubled yarn and subsequently took a plea that the goods were twine only to avail of the exemption. He referred to the findings of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) and pleaded that there was no ground for any interference in the view taken by the Appellate Authority.
4. We have carefully considered the matter, we find that in the classification lists filed the appellants had described their goods under sub-heading No. 5506.29 (Exhibit A of the Papers Book). They had described their goods as yarn of Poly-Vis (48% + 52%) and had referred that the yarn doubled at their end was to be cleared on payment of duty. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1988 (37) E.L.T. 471 (S.C.)] had held in the context of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff that the doubling and twisting of two different yarns amounted to the manufacture of a new type of yarn as envisaged by Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Paras 6 and 7 from that decision of the Apex Court are extracted below :
6. Hence, the short question involved in this appeal, is : whether the goods in question, namely, a special type of yarn marked as a finished product known as `PPRF Yarn’, should be treated as such and taxed on that basis. Excise duty is a duty on the manufacture of goods and not on sale. Manufacture is complete as soon as by the application of one or more process, the raw material undergoes some change. If a new substance is brought into existence of if a new or different article having a distinct name, character or use results from particular process or processes, such process or activity would amount to manufacture. The moment there is transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a separate and distinct commodity having its own character and use, ‘manufacture’ takes place. See the observations of this Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills 1963 Siippl. 1 SCR 586 ], Union of India v. HUF Business known as Ramlal Mansukhrai, Rewari and Anr. 1971 (1) SCR 936], Allenbur-ry Engineers P. Ltd. v. Ramkrishna Dalmia and Ors. [1973 (2) SCR 257], Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers 1980 SCR 1271], Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India [1981 SCC 653] and the cases referred to in the decision of this Court in Empire Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1985 Suppl. SCR 292]
7. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in the view it took. The Tribunal’s view is corroborated by its own view as expressed in its decision in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [1980 (6) E.L.T. 735]. Our attention was, however, drawn to the observations of the Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [1982 (10) E.L.T. 145], where the facts were slightly different but the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that merely by inter-twining strings of cotton yarn and nylon yarn, no new product comes into being. Whether by a certain process a new product comes into being or not, is a question of fact. There is no particular definition of ‘yarn’ in the Act or the Rules or the Notifications. According to the Oxford Dictionary ‘yarn’ means any spun thread specially of kinds prepared by weaving, knitting or rope making. According to the Webster’s New World Dictionary, it is defined as any fibre, as wool, silk, flax, cotton, nylon, etc. spun into strands for weaving, knitting or making thread.
5. Heading No. 55.06 covered yarn (including Sewing Thread) of artificial Staple Fibres not containing synthetic staple fibre. Under Section Note 2(a) under Section XI of the Tariff it has been provided that the articles classifiable in Chapters 52 to 55 or in Heading No. 58.06 or 59.02 and of a mixture of two or more textile materials are to be classified as if consisting wholely of that one textile material which predominates by weight any other single textile material.
6. The appellants have pleaded that goods were covered by Chapter 56 of the Tariff which covered wadding, felt and non-wovens, special yarns, twine, cordage, ropes and cables and articles thereof. We find that in the classification list the appellants have described their goods as yarn – doubled yarn. The appellate authority had discussed the composition of the yarn in question and had held that the doubled yarn in this case could not be considered as twine.
7. As per the Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary 6th impression 1971 twine had been described as twisted cord strong thread. The twisting is dif-ferent than the doubling. The appellants have not denied that they have manufactured the doubled yarn from staple fibre and filament yarn in which the staple fibre predominated.
8. On going through the material on record, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in this case.
9. As regards the plea of time bar he had rightly observed that the relevant date will be taken from the date of filing of the RT12 return. He had observed that the relevant date in this case was 7-6-1986 for the month of May, 1986 whereas the show cause had been issued on 19-11-1986 and had been received by the appellants on 20-11-1986 within the period of 6 months as applicable at that time.
10. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations taken into account we do not find any material to interfere with the view already taken by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) in this case. As a result there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
