ORDER
1. The question that has come up for decision in this case is what should be the correct Central Excise Tariff classification for High Density Polyethylene Tapes (in short referred to as HDPE tapes hereafter). These tapes are manufactured by first slitting, HDPE film into narrow strips and thereafter stretching these strips to form a still narrower tape. These tapes (as distinct from woven textiles tapes, are used in the manufacture of woven fabrics, twines and ropes and are described as split film yarns in Indian Standards Specification No. 6192-1971.
2. The case was argued before us on 17th and 30th December, 1982. Shri N.C. Trivedi appeared for the appellants and Shri K.D. Tayal for the respondent.
3. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Trivedi stated at the outset that recovery of duty in this case had already been stayed by the Gujarat High Court on 7-9-1982. Coming to the merits of the case, he conceded that HDPE tapes could be considered as yarn since they were used for weaving of fabrics (plastic sacking) but, Shri Trivedi maintained, these tapes were not filament yarn as understood in the market. He relied on the Gujarat High Court judgjament (1978-ELT-J. 64) in which the High Court had held that metallised tapes were not yarn but articles of plastics falling under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. Shri Trivedi stated that the basic prayer of the appellants also was that HDPE tapes were not filament yarn falling under Item 18 but were articles of plastics falling under Item 15A(2) and were fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 68/71-CE. Assuming, Shri Trivedi continued that HDPE tapes were filament yarn, then they fell in the category of monofila-ment yarn as they were having a single strand or strip and in that case they were fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 194/72-CE which exempted HDPE monofilament yarn of 60 deniers and above falling under Item No. 18 from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. Shri Trivedi’s final argument was that in the event HDPE tapes were not considered monofilament yarn, they were in any case fully exempt under Notification No. 164/72-CE which exempted HDPE tapes falling under Item No. 18 from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon if used in the manufacture of HDPE woven fabrics within the factory of production or in another factory after following the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri Trivedi stated that the Department had conceded that the impugned HDPE tapes had been fully accounted for as having been used in the manufacture of HDPE woven fabrics and that the only ground on which the Department had sustained the heavy demand for duty against the appellants was a technical one, namely, that the appellants had not followed the Chapter X procedure. Shri Trivedi argued that inasmuch as the appellants had fulfilled the condition of the notification in substance, their default in not taking out an L. 6 licence and not executing a B8 Bond was not of any consequence as the impugned HDPE tapes had been sent for the specified use to a neighbouring factory just across the road and had otherwise been fully accounted for.
4. On behalf of the Department, Shri Tayal stated that Item 15A(2) relating to articles of plastic was a general one and Item 18 relating to man-made yarn was more specific to cover HDPE tapes. He stated that HDPE tapes were yarn as per ISI specification 6192-1971 and they were used for weaving of fabrics. The exemption under Notification No. 164/72-CE could not be granted to the appellants because they had not followed the Chapter X procedure which was a statutory condition of the exemption incorporated in the notification itself. He stated further that though HDPE tapes were man-made yarn, they were not monofilament yarn. The Bench desired to know from him the definitions of filament yarn and monofilament yarn and why HDPE, tapes, consisting of a single strip or strand, could not be regarded as monofilament yarn. For this purpose, time was given to Shri Tayal. At the resumed hearing on 30-12-1982, Shri Tayal presented extracts from ISI specification 6192-1971 relating to monoaxially oriented HDPE tapes and ISI 1324-1966 containing Glossary of Textile Terms relating to Man-Made Fibre and Fabric Industry, which were taken on record after being shown to Shri Trivedi. Shri Trivedi had no objection to these specifications and definitions being relied upon.
5. We have given our earnest consideration to the matter. As both sides have relied upon the definitions as laid down by the ISI in the Glossary of Textile Terms, we consider it necessary to reproduce the relevant definitions:
“Filament-A fibre of indefinite length.
Monofilament-A single filament of sufficient size to function as a yarn in normal textile operations.
Multifilament-Yarn with many continuous filaments or strands.
Yarn-A continuous strand of textile fibres of filaments with or without twist suitable for plying, knitting, braiding, weaving, or otherwise intertwining to form a textile end product.
Yarn occurs in the following forms :-
(a) Spun Yarn-A yarn composed of fibres (short length, or staple) twisted together;
(b) Filament Yarn-A yarn composed of continuous filaments assembled with or without twist; (c) A monofilament, with or without twist; and (d) A narrow strip of materials, such as paper, cellophane or metal foil, with or without twist. NOTE-Varieties include single yarn, plied yarn, cabled yarn, cord, thread, fancy yarn, etc."
6. As HDPE tapes are considered as split film yarns in ISI Specification 6192-1971 and as these are used for weaving of fabrics and for the manufacture of twines and ropes i.e., the purposes for which yarn is generally used, these tapes could be considered as yarn. Even the appellants conceded this much during the hearing. The appellants’ main argument, however, is that though these tapes are man-made yarn, they are not filament yarn as known in the trade. We find considerable force in this argument. ISI Specification and definitions can reasonably be taken as a good guide to the trade understanding and during the hearing before us both sides have relied on them. We find that in ISI 1324-1966,’filament’ has been defined as “a fibre of indefinite length”. It is nobody’s case that HDPE tapes can be considered as fibre. In their method of manufacture as well as in their nature, they are totally different from fibre. Man-made fibres are extruded through spinneretes while the impugned HDPE tapes were manufactured by slitting HDPE film and by stretching the slit strips. ISI 1324-1966 gives four distinct categories of man-made yarns, as stated in the extracts reproduced in para 5 above. Filament yarn is a cotegory distinct from narrow strip yarns or split film yarns. In the light of these definitions and understanding of the term yarn and filament, we find ourselves in agreement with the appellants that the impugned HDPE tapes are man-made yarn but not filament yarn. Since Item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff contains only four specific categories of man-made fibres and yarn, namely :
I. Man-made fibres, other than mineral fibres.
II. Man-made filament yarn.
III. Cellulosic spun yarn.
IV. Non-cellulosic wastes, all sorts.
the impugned HDPE tapes, being neither man-made filament yarn nor cellulosic spun yarn, do not fit into any category of Item 18. They also do not fall under Item No. 18E as they are not non-cellulosic spun yarn. There is no other specific tariff item for yarn under which the impugned HDPE tapes could be covered and since HDPE is a well known plastic raw-material, tapes made from this material could rightly be covered under Item 15A(2) as “articles made of plastics, all sorts, . .” and they were exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 68/71-CE. Having so held, it is unnecessary for us to go into the other arguments of the appellants and of the Department as to whether the impugned HDPE tapes were monofilament yarn or not and whether the exemption under Notification No. 164/72-CE was merited or not.
7. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, with consequential relief, on the short point that the impugned HDPE tapes were not man-made filament yarn falling under Item 18 but were articles of plastic falling under Item 15A(2) and exempt under Notification No. 68/71-CE.