Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krystal Polyfab Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Krystal Polyfab Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 13, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29345

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/29345
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Nov 13, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Krystal Polyfab Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(156)ELT292Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this appeal is directed against an order dated 14-10-97 passed by the commissioner (appeals). the issue raised is whether draw twisted yarn is leviable to duty before 16-3-95.2. commissioner (appeals) took the view that for the first time draw twisted yarn came to be specifically covered under chapter heading 5302.49 in 1995. the commissioner took the view that chapter note 3 introduced by 1995-96 budget also specifically stipulated that the process of twisting amounted to manufacture. notification 36/95-c.e., dated 16-3-95 stipulates specifically the tariff value for polyester filament yarn textured or twisted. prior to 16-3-95 the tariff value was fixed only for textured and non-textured polyester filament yarn.on the above view the commissioner (appeals) disagreed with the assistant commissioner and held that such yarn was not leviable to duty prior to 16-3-95.3. admittedly the respondent herein gets duty paid yarn and carries out only the process of twisting. the above activity was not treated as "manufacture" before 16-3-95. under these circumstances, we find no reason to take a different view from that taken by the commissioner (appeals).4. we, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. the appeal stands dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 14-10-97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue raised is whether Draw Twisted Yarn is leviable to duty before 16-3-95.

2. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that for the first time Draw Twisted yarn came to be specifically covered under Chapter Heading 5302.49 in 1995. The Commissioner took the view that Chapter Note 3 introduced by 1995-96 Budget also specifically stipulated that the process of twisting amounted to manufacture. Notification 36/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 stipulates specifically the tariff value for Polyester Filament Yarn textured or twisted. Prior to 16-3-95 the tariff value was fixed only for textured and non-textured polyester filament yarn.

On the above view the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the Assistant Commissioner and held that such yarn was not leviable to duty prior to 16-3-95.

3. Admittedly the respondent herein gets duty paid yarn and carries out only the process of twisting. The above activity was not treated as "manufacture" before 16-3-95. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to take a different view from that taken by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Krystal Polyfab Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.