LexM/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD., BHILWARA, RAJASTHAN versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MIS RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEA YING MILLS LTD., BHILWARA, RAJASTHAN v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN B MAY 9, 1995 (R.M. SAHA! AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : C First Schedule-Item 18-E-'Polypropylene Spun Yam'-Exemption D From duty-Notificatioir--Scope and interpretation of-Non-cellulosic spun yam consisting of polypropylene fibre and viscose fibre with predominant weight of former component-Held not covered by the Notification-Onus is on the assessee to establish that the goods produced are governed by exemp- tion-Exemption notification should be construed strictly. The appellant-Company was manufacturing non-cellulosic spun yarn consisting of 52% polypropylene fibre and 48% viscose fibre which was liable to be classified under Tariff item 18-E of the Fist Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It claimed benefit of Notification E No. 332177 dated 1.12.1977 which provided that 'polypropylene spun yarn' falling under item 18-E was exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. The claim was accepted by the Collector (Appeals) but the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal disallowed the claim holding that the term 'polypropylene spun yarn' used in the F notification meant yarn spun out of Polypropylene fibers and the blended yarns manufactured by the Company was not covered by it. In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant-Company that the exemption provided under the Notification was applicable not only to pure polypropylene spun yarn but also to blended yarn if the G polypropylene component of the yarn was predominant in weight. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. The notification exempts from duty polypropylene spun yarn falling under Tariff Item 18-E, but not blended spun yarn containing H polypropylene. The appellant has produced a yarn in which polypropylene 112 RAJASfHAN SPNG. AND WG. MIUS LTD. v. C.C.E. [SEN, J.[ 113 predominates. Because of the predominance of Polypropylene, the goods A produced will be classified as 'non- cellulosic spun yarn' under Tariff Item 18-E. The exemption notification, however, is confined to polypropylene spun yarn only. It does not speak of any blended yarn in which polypropylene predominates or is equal in weight with any other fibre. No proof was adduced to show that in commercial parlance such blended yarn B was known as polypropylene yarn. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the blended yarn produced by the appellant comprising of 52% polypropylene fibre and 48% viscose fibre will answer the description 'polypropylene spun yarn' as given in the exemption notification. (119-F.-G] Collector Central Excise v. Rajasthan Spinning and weaving Mills Ltd., C , [1993] 1 sec 420, referred to •. 2. It is for ihe assessee to .establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the exemption notification. In case of exemption from duty,_ there is no question of any liberal construction to extend the term and the scope of the exemption notification. Such exemp, D tion notification must be strictly construed and the assessee should bring himself squarely within the ambit of the notification. No extended meaning can be given to the exemption item to enlarge the scope of exemption granted by the notification. [120-A-B] CIVIl,. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4154 of E 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.87 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellants Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. 478/83- D(Order No. 694/87-D). F D.A. Dave, Bhaskar Pradhan, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Manik Karan- jawala and Ms. Nandini Gore for the Appellant. . A.K. Ganguli, C.B. Babu, N.K. Verma and Dilip Tandon for the Respondent G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SE)I!, J. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Bhil- wara, has come up in appeal against an order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The case in the H 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. l S.C.R. A Tribunal was heard by a Bench comprising of the Senior Vice-President and the Judicial Member. There was difference of opinion between the two members on the following question: B Whether the blended yarn m which polypropylene fibre predominates was or was not entitled to benefit under Central Excise Notification No. 322/77-CE dated 1.12.1977? The matter was referred
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.