ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. M/s. Yogesh Corporation have prayed for decision on merits.
2. The matter relates to the classification of products obtained by slitting the polyester films into thin strips by cutting machine. The appellants have claimed that the goods so produced were classifiable under Item No. 15 of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff while the Revenue had sought to classify them as yarn under Item No. 18 of the said Tariff for period 16-3-1972 to 16-6-1977 and under Item No. 18-II(iii) of the said Tariff thereafter.
3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR. We have gone through the facts on record and have also gone through the relevant Tariff Entry.
4. The main ground taken by the appellants is that they were engaged in the slitting of the polyester metallised sheets into various thickness as per the requirement of the market and the slitting process did not fall within the ambit of the manufacture of man-made yarn. We find that what the appellants were bringing were the polyester metallised sheets and the product being manufactured were the metallised yarn. The metallised yarn was produced on the micro slitter and winder and it has been clearly mentioned in the catalogue of the machines that the metallic yarns are produced thereon. In the captioned ‘Features’, the following had been described.
“As the designer and manufacturer of the finest slitters and spooling machines, Nishimura has taken the lead in providing equipment that, contribute to operating efficiency in slitting and spooling metallic yarns. Nishimura equipment have wide acceptance as the standard of the industry. The construction is made extremely handy for operation, with less physical fatigue on the operator. The metallic yarns slit by this machine are highly evaluated by the users.”
It has been clearly mentioned in the machine catalogue that the goods produced by slitting was the yarn.
5. The raw material brought from outside was the metallised polyester film and the goods produced were metallic yarn. They are two separate products having different use, name and character. In fact, in the case of Superintendent of Central Excise and Ors. v. Vac Met Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – 1985 (22) E.L.T. 330 (S.C), the Apex Court had also affirmed that there was a process of manufacture when metallized yarn (metallic yarn) manufactured in the form of silvery white or golden thin flat, narrow and continuous strip made of metallized polyester from metallized laminated plastic sheets or foils are slitted by electrically operated machines. They had classified such metallic yarn under Item No. 15A(2) of the Tariff as at that time, the metallic yarn was not specifically covered by Item No. 18 but there was no doubt that process involved was the process of manufacture.
6. It has been admitted by the appellants that the goods produced by them were used for embellishing the sarees and other fabrics as zari. The two products – the film and the yarn had different uses and as such it could not be said that no process of manufacture was involved in the production of yarn from the film.
7. In the Central Excise Tariff, w.e.f. 16-3-1972 the metallic yarn has been specifically included in the Central Excise Tariff. When an item is specifically enumerated and described in the Tariff and when the goods presented for assessment meet such requirement, it could not be contended that the goods were not manufactured products for the purpose of the excise levy.
8. The appellants have referred to the decision wherein it had been held that metallized yarn was covered by Item No. 15A of the erstwhile Central Excise Act. This decision referred to the Tariff prior to 1972 as from that date, the metallic yarn has been specifically excluded in the Tariff under Item No. 18. We consider that they were to be classified under the specific entry specifically mentioning the metallic yarn and not under the general description of articles made of plastics.
9. Both the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Bombay and the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay have referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supdt. of Central Excise and Ors. v. Vac Met Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Departmental Representative had submitted that prior to 16-3-1972 there was no specific mention of metallized yarn under Item No. 18 and in view of the changes in the Tariff, the decision of the Apex Court will have to be seen in the light of the Tariff as in force during the relevant time.
10. As from 16-3-1972, the Tariff Item No. 18 reads as under :
“Rayon and Synthetic fibres and Yarn in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power”
Explanation : “Rayon and Synthetic Fibres and Yarn” shall be deemed to include :-
(i) Man-made Fibres;
(ii) Spun (continuous) yarn containing not less than ninety per cent by weight of man-made fibres calculated on the total fibre content;
(iii) Man-made filament (continuous) yarn; and
(iv) Man-made metallic yarn.
11. In view of the specific inclusion of man-made metallic yarn in the Tariff Entry 18 w.e.f. 16-3-1972 and keeping in view the processes involved, the view taken by the lower authorities is correct.
12. Taking all the relevant facts and consideration into account, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As a result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
