ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This order will dispose of 11 appeals as a common question of fact and law are involved there.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of man-made blended yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the CETA. They were manufacturing single yarn as well as doubled/multifolded yarn. They were using single yarn for the manufacture of multifolded yarn without entering the quantity of single yarn in their relevant registers. However, they were entering only doubled/multifolded yarn in the register and discharging the duty at the time of clearance of the doubled/multifolded yarn. They were served with show cause notices wherein duty demand was raised from them. They contested the correctness of those show cause notices by alleging that there was no removal of the single yarn in terms of Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules while using the same in the manufacture of doubled/multifolded yarn. They also avered that the norm of the waste occurring during the manufacture of the doubled/multifolded yarn had not been correctly applied and allowance of that waste was to be given to them while paying the duty on the single ply yarn. The Assistant Collector who adjudicated the show cause notices in all these appeals, however, did not agree with their contention and confirmed the duty demand as raised in the show cause notices.
3. Their appeals against those orders of the Assistant Commissioner were also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned orders.
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned orders, the appellants have come up in appeal. So far as the duty liability at the stage of single ply yarn is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the counsel before us. He has fairly conceded that the Apex Court in CCE v. Banswara Syntex Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 645 (S.C.) has laid down that “single ply yarn is a manufactured product and thereafter its doubling or multifolding is immaterial as no new product arises by doing so. Therefore, the findings of the Assistant Commissioner as well as of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants were liable to discharge the duty at the stage of single ply yarn being a manufactured product are affirmed.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that the norm of the waste emerging during the manufacture of the doubled yarn from the single yarn had not been correctly applied by the authorities below. He has placed much reliance on the copy of the literature produced by the appellants on the records and contended that norms should have been 0.30% as against 0.35% applied by the authorities below. But in our view this contention of the counsel is also not liable to be accepted. The appellants did not maintain any record of the issuance of the single ply yarn from the factory for the manufacture of the doubled/multifolded yarn.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below in our view has rightly assessed in all the appeals fixed norm of the waste as 0.35% correctly except in Appeal No. E/2483/99-D wherein the norm of the waste cannot be said to have been correctly fixed by the authorities below. There existed no cogent reason for the authorities to deviate in that appeal from the norm 0.35% as fixed in other appeals and fix another norm of 0.75% waste therein. Therefore, the norm of the waste fixed in that appeal is accordingly modified to 0.35%.
7. The validity of the impugned orders in all these appeals, has not been challenged before us on any other ground.
8. In view of the discussion made above, all the appeals of the appellants are ordered to be dismissed except with a slight modification in Appeal No. E/2483/98-D by changing the norm of waste from 0.30% to 0.35%, therein.