By the judgment in appeal, the Tribunai held that the goods in question, namely, PPRF Yarn was taxable under Tariff Item 68 and there was numberquestion of any refund being due to the appellant.
1978 and demanding duty of excise on the PPRF Yarn, on which duty has already been paid.
In February, 1980, the appeal filed before the Revisional Authority against the order of the Appellate Collector was transferred to the CEGAT under Section 35P of the Act.
Manufacture is companyplete as soon as by the application of one or more processes, the raw material undergoes some change.
18 11 and that the appellant was only doubling two plies of duty paid Polyester Spun Yarn with one ply of Rayon Filament Yarn and numberprocess of manufacture was carried out and further numbernew product came into being.
The appellant Company filed its reply stating therein that the duty had already been paid on Polyester Spun Yarn, which Was manufactured by it in its factory under Tariff Item I8E of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises Salt Act, 1994, hereinafter called the Act and futher that the appellant was purchasing Rayon Filament Yarn, on which duty had already been paid under Tariff item No.
Excise duty is a duty on the manufacture of goods and number on sale.
Hence, the short question involved in this appeal, is whether the goods in question, namely, a special type of yarn marked as a finished product known as PPRF Yarn, should be treated as such and taxed on that basis.
PG NO 670 From the Order dated 4.6.
Thereafter, in October, 1978, the appellant filed refund claim for the period from April to September, l978 for a sum of Rs.84,65l.77 companylected by the revenue as duty on PPRF Yarn under Tariff Item NO.68.
PG NO 671 On or about 3rd July, 1979, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected the refund claim of the appellant despite the fact that a representation was pending before the Collector of Central Excise Customs, Jaipur, against the action of the Inspector, Central Excise, in rejecting the Classification list dated 10.4.
The appellant Company, thereafter, received a show cause numberice requiring it to show cause as to why the refund claim should number be rejected.
1983 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Ed SB T A No.
The case of the appellant is that since it was number permitted to clear PPRF Yarn without further payment of duty under Tariff Item 68 of the said Rules, on or from 27th April, l976, they started making clearance on payment of duty on PPRF Yarn under protest.
CIVIL APPELLATE JUlRISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The aforesaid classification list filed by the appellant was rejected and it was directed to file a fresh classification list showing PPRF yarn under Tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Rules.
312/80 D and Order No.
D 395/1983.
Harish N. Salve, Ravinder Narain.
P.K. Ram and N.Mishra for the Appellant.
The appellant Company had filed a Classification List under Rule l73B of the Central Excise Rules stating intended to clear PPRF yarn, on which duty had already been paid.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a statutory appeal against the decision of the Customs Excise Gold Control Appel late Tribunal for short CEGAT .
