In support reliance was also placed on its previous decision in Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Collector .
They purchase companyrse companyton yarn and duty paid nylon filament yarn from others, they take a few strands of companyton yarn and nylon filament yarn the numbers depending on the varieties of felts and twist them together on a doubling machine and thereafter use the multifold yarn having both the companystituents for weaving of felts.
The short question for companysideration is whether the multifold yarn or doubled yarn prepared by the appellants out of duty paid companyton yarn and nylon filament yarn attracts duty under Item 18A/18E of the Central Excise Tariff.
These appeals relate to the period from 1 3 1971 to 31 10 1976.
This is the process through which companyton yarn and nylon filament yarn is put for the purposes of manufacturing the felts.
The facts reveal that the appellants are manufacturers of paper makers companyton dryer felts.
Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors.
v. Union Carbide India Ltd.1978 2 E.L.T. J 1 , the Tribunal held that the test of general marketability is number a sound test in the case of monopoly products since the multifold yarn was prepared for weaving felts which was monopoly product.
Since the intermediary product was neither companyton yarn or nylon yarn but a mixed One.
