D.P. LONversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

                                   D.P. LON                                     A
                                       V.

          COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

                              MARCH 13, 2003

            [S.N. VARIA VA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]                         B


        Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:

        Heading 56.06:
                                                                                c
      Classification-Fancy yarn/ Taspa yarn-levy of excise duty-Held:
The process used by the appellant in manufacturing of yarn is bound to
produce a special effect yarn-The yarn could appropriately classifiable as
fancy yarn under Heading 56.06-Hence appellant liable to pay excise duty--
Central Excise Rules, 1944-Rule 174-Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-         D
Section 6.

        Words & Phrases:

        'Fancy yarn'-Meaning of in thrz context a/Central F;xcise Tariff Act,
1985.
                                                                                E
       Appellant-firm had been manufacturing yarn by the process of
doubling/multifolding of yarn. The yarn so produced was claimed to be
exempt from levy of excise duty. The Collector (Revenue) after issuing a
show cause notice and not satisfied with the reply, confirmed demand of
certain amount of central excise duty for certain period holding that the       p
yarn manufactured by the appellant was classifiable as fancy yarn under
tariff sub-heading 56.06 and also imposed penalty under Rule 173 -Q of
the Central Excise Ruies. The Tribunal re.iected the appeal and
rectification of mistake application thereafter. Hence the present appeals.

      It was contended for the appellant that since the yarn produced by        G
the appella'nt was exempt from payment of excise duty and in view of
conflicting decisions by the Tribunal on the subject, it was incumbent on
the Tribunal to follow the latest judgment of"Pratik Crimpers v. Collector
a/Central Excise, Mumbai, 1998 (101) ELT 437", and to set aside the order

                                      1125                                      H
    1126                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A   of the Collector levying excise duty on yarn manufactured by it, and that
    merely because the process resulted in the production of special effect yarn,
    the yarn.could not be classifiable under Heading 56.06.

          On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that since core yarn
    was used for base yarn, the yarn so produced was a special yarn falling
B   under Heading No. 56.06; and that the Tribunal had taken into
    consideration the manufacturing process as well as contents of the product
    and rightly came to the conclusion that the product in question was
    classifiable under Heading No. 56.06.

           Dismissing the appeals, the Court
c
          HELD: I.I. The Commissioner and the Tribunal have rightly
    decided that the sample appears to satisfy the requirements of definition
    of'Fancy Yarn' as given in the standar-' :~chnical literature and appears
    to be C?Vered under Heading No. 56.06 as 'special yarn'. [1131-FI
D         1.2. Investigation revealed that the appellant had not obtained
    Central Excise licence for such manufacture and that they were removing
    such yarns without payment of central excise duty in the manner
    otherwise than as provided in the Central Excise Rules. Thus it is seen
    that the appellant-unit had contravened the provisions of Rule 174 of the
E   Central Excise Rules read with Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt
    Act, 1944 Rule 173F read with Rule 9(1) etc. of the Central Excise Rules,
    1944 inasmuch as they engaged themselves in the manufacture of excisable
    goods, namely, Fancy yarnffaspa' yarn classifiable and chargeable to duty
    of excise under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 prior to 1.3.1986 and under
    Chapter/Heading 56.06 thereafter of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
F   without their having applied for and obtained a licence and failed to
    determine their liability to duty in respect of these goods manufactured
    and removed by them without payment of duty leviable thereon. They
    have also failed to file classification lists and price lists as required and
    failed to prepare and issue gate passes in the prescribed form for the
G   removal of the aforesaid goods and further failed to maintain statutory
    accounts of the production and removal of the said goods manufactured
    by them in their factory and suppressed to supply the material facts with
    a deliberate and wilful intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty.
                                                      [1133-G, H; 1134-A, B, Cl

H          1.3. The yarn manufactured by the appellant is special yarn falling
       D.P. LON v. C.C.E. AND CUSTOMS [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.]             1127

under Heading No. 56.06 and hence the exemption notifications mentioned         A
by them are not applicable in this case. They also failed to pay excise
duty though they were required to pay duty and hence the action initiated
by the preventive wing is correct. It is very clear from the findings of the
adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority that the yarn in
question consists of core yarn and hence the yarn is correctly classifiable     B
under Heading No. 56.06. Plea as to carrying out process of doubling of
yarn on simple crimping machine and hence fall under Chapters 50 to 55
is not correct and not acceptable. Since the process in the particular case
is bound to produce a special effect yarn, the appellant is liable to pay
duty for contravention of Rule 174 read with Section 6.etc. of the Central
Excises and Salt Act, 1944. [1134-E-H; 135-D]                                   C
    Pratik Crimpers v. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai, (1998) 101
ELT 437, held inapplicable.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5472-5473
of 2000.                                                                        D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2000 of the Central Excise
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in E/ROM//125/99-D in
A.No. E/2618/90-D in F.O. No .. M/12/2000-D.

     Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Anshul Singal and Ms. Hema Chattri for the            E
Appellant.

     M.L.. Verma, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and B. Krishna Prasad for the
Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                F
      AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The appellant-firm filed these appeals
challenging, inter alia, the judgment and order dated 25.2.2000 passed by the
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi being
Miscellaneous Order No. M/12/2000-D in E/ROM/125/99-D in Application
No. E/2618/90~0, and final order No. 487/98-D dated 15.6.1998 in Appeal         G
No. E/2618/1990-D whereby the Tribunal has held that 'Taspa' yarn
manufactured by the appellant was covered under Heading No. 56.06 of the
Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, confirmed the demand of duty of central
excise of Rs. 5,63,066.40 and penalty of Rs.50,000. The facts of the case in
brief are as follows:-
                                                                                H
    1128                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A       The appellant-firm was issued a licence under the Central Excise Act,
   1944 for carrying out the processing work of yarn. According to the appellant,
  since 22.5.1986, the doubled and/or multifolded yarns falling under Chapter
  54 or Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were
  wholly exempted from the duty of excise leviable thereon, provided such
B doubled or multifolded yarns were manufactured out of yarn falling under.
  Chapter 54 or Chapter 55 of the said Schedule on which appropriate duty of
  excise had already been paid. Relying upon the aforesaid notifications, the
  appellant did not pay any duty of excise on the same and neither did it
  recover such duty of excise from its customers. The Collector of Central
  Excise issued a show cause notice dated 15-7-1988 to the appellant-firm
C calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why duty of excise amounting
  to Rs. 5,63,066.40 be not recovered on the goods, i.e., 'Taspa' yarn/fancy
  yarn falling under erstwhile tariff item no. 62 with effect from 1.3.1986 and
  under Chapter/tariff sub-heading 56.06 and penalty be not imposed on them
  under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A reply was sent to the
  show cause notice that the appellant categorically averred that it bona fidely
D believed that the doubled filament yarn was exempted from payment of duty
  of Central Excise and there was no intentional contravention of Rule 173 of
  the Central Excise Rule, 1944.

           The appellant-firm further stated that it was engaged in the business of
E   processing yarns such as crimping, texturing, doubling multifolding etc. and
    that the firm had carried out doubling of yarn on a simple crimping machine
    and that the simple process of doubling of yarn on crimping machine was
    covered under Notification M.F. (C.D.R) I. No. 114/18/86 CX 3 dated
    18.4.1986.

p          The Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara passed an order on 29.3.1990
    confirming the demand of duty of Central Excise amounting to Rs. 5,63,066.40
    for .the period from February, 1986 to September 30, 1987 and also imposed
    a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant.

        . Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Central Excise
G and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal vide its
  judgment and order dated 15.6.1998 rejected the appeal of the appellant. The
  Tribunal while rejecting the appeal relied upon its earlier judgment and order
  in the case of Dhamwala Silk Mills Surat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner a/Central
  Excise, Vadodara, (1997) 73ECR 383. Since the impugned judgment of the
H Tribunal suffered from error apparent on the face of the record, the appellant
            D.P. LON v. C.C.E. AND CUSTOMS [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.]                1129

    filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of mistake, being Application   A
    No. E/ROM/125/99-D and pointed out that the facts of the appellant were
    closely comparable to the facts of Pratik Crimpers v. Collector of Central
    Excise, Mumbai, (1998) 101 E.L.T. 437, the latter judgment of the Tribunal
    particularly, with regard to yarns being run parallel, the manufacturing process
    being common and the machineries being the same.
                                                                                        B
           The Tribunal rejected the -application for rectification of mistake vide
    judgment and order dated 25.2.2000 and held that 'Taspa' yarn manufactured
    "by the appellant was covered under Heading No. 56.06 of the Central Excise
     Tariff and, therefore, confirmed the demand of duty of central excise of
     Rs. 5,63,066.40 and penalty of Rs. 50,000.                                         c
            The present appeal was filed by the appellant in this Court on the basis
     that the Full Bench of the Tribunal has, by its final order dated 22.05.2000,
     upheld the view taken by it in the case of Pratik Crimpers (supra), which
     facts and decision are same to the facts of the case of the appellant.
                                                                                        D
           We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel appearing for
     the appellant and Mr. M.L. Venna, learned senior counsel appearing for the
     respondent.

            We have perused the notifications a~d orders passed by the
      Commissioner and the Tribunal and other relevant records. Our attention was E
      drawn to the pleadings and records by the counsel appearing on either side.
      The point for consideration in these appeals are as to whether there was an
      error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment dated 15.06.1998 as
      argued by the learned counsel for the appellant and that whether the Tribunal
      has erred in holding that the 'Taspa' yarn is classifiable and assessable to duty
      of excise under Heading No. 56.06. Learned counsel for the appellant F
      submitted that the Board's circulars as well as the fact that there was no core
      yarn in the dispute_d goods and hence the same were classifiable between

-     Chapters 50 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff and that the facts of the
    · appellant were closely comparable to the facts of the case of Pratik Crimpers
      (supra), the latter judgment of the Tribunal particularly with regard to the G
      yarns being run parallel, the manufacturing process being common and the
      machineries being the same. She also placed before us the Full Bench decision
      of the Tribunal which by its final order dated 22.05.2000 upheld the view
      taken by it in the case of Pratik Crimpers (supra), which facts and decisions,
      according to the learned counsel for the appellant, are similar to the facts of
      the case on hand. She submitted that the impugned order suffers from error H
    1130                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003 J 2 S. C.R.

A apparent on the face of the record and hence requires to be set aside. Arguing
   further, she urged that the appellant had bona fide believed that the product
   in question, namely, filament .doubled yarn was exempted from payment of
  duty of excise in view of Trade Notice No. 229/88 dated 25.11.1988. She
  further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that in view of the
B conflicting decisions on the issue of classification of the filament doubled
  yam, namely, that of Dhamanwala Si~k Mills (supra) and the later decision
  in the case of Pratik Crimpers (supra), it was appropriate for the Tribunal to
  follow the latter decision on the subject. It was intended that the larger Bench·
  of the Tribunal in the case of Vasania Silk Mills v. Commissioner of Central
  Excise, Surat, (1999) 114 ELT 222 decided the issue and held the 'Taspa'
C yarn to be classifiable under Chapter 54 and upheld the judgment of the
  Tribunal in the case of Pratik Crimpers (supra) while rejecting the view
  taken in the case of Dhamanwa/a Silk Mills (supra) and since the judgment
  ~f the Pratik Crimper's case was later in point of time than the case of
  Dhamanwala Silk Mills (supra) and since the Tribunal in the case of Pratik
  Crimpers (supra), had also considered. the Board's circular and the earlier
D contrary judgment in case of Mis. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CCE., (1995)
  78 ELT 580 T, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to have
  considered and applied the ratio of Pratik Crimper's case (supra) read with
  the Board's circular by passing the impugned order. She further submitted
  that it is incorrect to state that merely because the process produces special
E effect slub/loop, the yarn is classifiable under Heading No. 56.06 and that for
  the yarn to be classified under Heading No. 56.06, the presence of core yarn
  is mandatory and that there being no core yarn in the product manufactured
  by the appellant, the same is not classifiable under Heading No.56.06.

           Per contra, Shri M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the
F   respondent, submitted that there is no need to refer to any of the judgments
    cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant inasmuch as the
    Tribunal while deciding the present case had gone through the manufacturing
    process as well as the contents of the products which led to the decision for
    classifying the product under Heading No. 56.06, While in the case of Pratik
G   Crimpers (supra), no such point was discussed and the decision was given
    simply on the ground that the Tribunal had no means of knowing whether the
    yarn before them was identical to the yarn before the Tribunal when they
    gave the cited judgments. He further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal
    are not at all contrary to the Board's circular dated 19. l 0.1988 and the Board
    under the said circular clarified that the instructions applicable to such type
H   of fancy yarn in which there is a core yarn and that the instructions contained
         D.P. LON v. C.C.E. AND CUSTOMS [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.]                1131

  in Board's circular F.No.55/9/87-CX-I dated 30.6.1987 are not sought to be         A
  modified by the letter dated 26.4.1988 and that both the instructions may be
  read separately. According to him the Tribunal had correctly observed in
· view of the admission of the appellant regarding use of core yarn for base
  yarn that the yarn in question is a special yarn falling under Heading No.56.06.
  He further submitted that the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as
  by the Tribunal are perfectly correct and that the same are not liable to be       B
  set aside as requested by the appellants and that the orders passed by the
  Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal are not perverse as alleged

        In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel, relied on some
 judgments of this Court. This Court in the case of Reliance Silicon (!) Pvt. C
 Ltd. v. Collection, Central Excise Thane, (1997] 1 SCC 215, held that where
 the classification of the excisable goods under different excise items involved
 a question of highly technical nature requiring scrutiny of the chemical
 characteristics of the goods, decisions of the CEGA T cannot be lightly
 interfered with unless the finding are perverse or otherwise erroneous in law
 or based on no evidence.                                                        ·D

       In the case of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CE.SC.
 Ltd. etc. etc., JT (2002) 7 578, this Court observed that the High Court
 merely because it has unrestricted appellate power, should not interfere with
 the considered order of the commission unless it is satisfied that the order of
 the commission is perverse, not based on evidence or on misreading of               E
 evidence, keeping in mind the fact that the commission is an expert body.

       In the case of Mis. Asian Paints India Ltd v. Collector of Central
 Excise, [ 1988] 2 SCC 470, this Court held that the finding of fact arrived at
 on relevant and valid materials cannot be easily interfered with.
                                                                                     F
       We have carefully perused both the orders under appeal. In our opinion,
 the Commissioner and the Tribunal have rightly decided that the sample
 appears to satisfy the requirements of definition of 'Fancy Yarn' as given in
 the standard technical literature and appears to be covered under Heading
 No. 56.06 as special yarn of Central Excise Tariff.                                 G
       In the instant case, on collection of intelligence to the effect that the
 unit has been manufacturing and removing excisable goods, namely, fancy
 yarn of the category of the special yarns specified under Heading No. 56.06
 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 without payment of duties of excise
 leviable thereon, thereby, indulging in a large scale evasion of Central Excise H
    1132                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2003) 2 S.C.R.

A duty, the officer of the Headquarters Preventive Wing, Baroda on the directions
    of the Deputy Collector (Prev.), Central Excise and Custom, Baroda visited
    by surprise the factory premises of the unit on 29.9.1987 for checks and
    inquiry. During the course of their visit, the offcers found that the unit was
    carrying out processes of texturing, crimping on man made filament yam etc.
    for which the unit had installed one Lohia Magnetic Machine Model No.
B   MT.466 in their factory premises. The officer further noticed that the unit
    was manufacturing 'Taspa' yarn, for which the yams of the different deniers
    are taken on the aforesaid machine simultaneously; one yarn which is running
    in lower speed is known as core/base yari. while the other yam, which is
    running in higher speed is known as slub yarn, and that the quantity of core
C   yarn and the slub yarn is in the ratio 1: 1.5, and that in the manufacturing of
    the said 'Taspa' yarn the unit had specially attached devices Tensor and
    eramic guide in the said machine by importing them from Japan. From the
    invoices and the sale Register of the unit, it was noticed by the officers that
    the unit manufactured and cleared 'Taspa' yarn of the description as 20+ 30
    "Nylon x Polyester", 75 x 75 "Polyester x Viscose", 90 x 75 "Polyester
D   Filament x Viscose". In response to the summons dated 20.9.1987, the unit
    has produced the invoices and records of purchase and sale from 1983 to
     1987 for scrutiny and examination. On scrutiny of records and invoices, it
    was revealed to the officers that the unit had manufactured and removed
    'Taspa' yarn of the category of the special yarns specified under Heading No.
E   5606.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The Department also sought
    the opinion of the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise, Baroda, who by his
    report submitted as follows:

            "The sample is in the form of two ply yarn having elongated strips
            (knots) at regular intervals. It is made of textured polysters filament
F           yarn and viscose filament yarn. The two yarns are intertwisted
            deliberately in such a way so as to form strips (knots) at regular
            intervals lengthwise having a different appearance than the normal
            constructions of folded yarn."

        The officers have also recorded the statement ofShri Vipulbhai Vasantial
G Merchant, Partner of the appellant under Section 14 of the Central Excise and
  Salt Act, 1944 in which he stated that they are engaged in processing of yam
  such as crimping/texturising for which they have got one machine of Lohia
  make-Model Ht. 416, which has got 144 spindles; that mostly they are carrying
  out crimping process on Nylon yarn of different deniers, as also on polyester
H filament yarn of various deniers; and that they have not done any crimping
         D.P. LON v. C.C.E. AND CUSTOMS [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.]             1133
process on pay. He further replied that for the manufacture of T6 denier          A
polyester crimped yarn as described in their invoices, they have used two
yarns polyester yarn 75 deniers and the other viscose yam of 75 deniers and
processed in the same way as described alone in respect of 20 x 30 quality
yarn there is no slub effect but in the yam of 75 deniers quality there is slub
effect; and added that they are using the yams together in their crimping         B
machine the base yam is of 75 denier polyester filament and the slub effect
yam is 75 denier viscose, and that the ratio of quantity of base yam to slub
effect yam is 1: 1.5.

       The officers have also recorded the statement of Shri Ishwar bhai
Durlabhbhai Modi, Manager of M/s lshwar Textiles of Surat, who had C
purchased 20x30 quality 'Taspa' yam from the unit. He stated that they had
purchased yams only once from the appellant and that the yam was of the
description of2000 'Taspa' yam, which consisted of20 denier Nylon and 30
denier polyester yam, that the said yarn had slub effect; that the said yam
was used as weft in the manufacture of fabrics; that these fabrics also had
slub effect and that the said fabrics were known as 'Taspa' fabrics or fancy D
fabrics. The statement of Shri Maheshwari V. Mehra, partner ofM/s. Shreenath
Silk Mills, Udhna, Surat was also recorded. He stated that they had purchased
and received 'Taspa' yarn of the quality of 20x30 deniers and that in this
yarn two yarns were crimped together-one was Nylon yam of 20 deniers
and the other was polyester yam of 30 deniers; that the said yam, which is E
known in the market as 'Taspa' yam was having slub effect and that they had
used this Taspa yam of 20x30 quality in the writ in the manufacture of sarees
and the product they manufactured 'was called Taspa fabrics. In view of the
test results and the process of manufacture, it was revealed to the Department
that the unit had been manufacturing Taspa yam/Fancy yarn out of duty paid
polyester filament/NylonNiscose yams with a special process which given F
special design and shape to the final yam. The statement recorded by the
officers clearly shows that the Taspa yam/fancy yam manufactured and cleared
by the unit was classifiable and chargeable to duty under Heading No. 5606.00
of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as is covered within the meaning of
other special yams from 1.3.1986 onwards and prior to 1.3. 1986 under the G
category of "All other goods, not elsewhere specified". The investigation
also revealed that the appellant had not obtained Central Excise licence for
such manuf~cture and that they were removing such yarns without payment
of central excise duty and in the manner otherwise than as provided in the
Central Excise Rules. Thus it is seen that the appellant-unit had contravened
the provisions of Rule 174 read with Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt H
    1134                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Act, 1944, Rule l 73F read with Rule 9(1) etc. of the Central Excise Rules,
   1944 inasmuch as they engaged themselves in the manufacture of excisable
  goods, namely, 'Taspa' yarn/Fancy yarn classifiable and chargeable to duty
  of excise under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 prior to 1.3.1986 and under Chapter/
  sub-heading 5606.00 thereafter of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 without
  their having applied for and obtained a licence in Form 14 and failed to
B determine their liability to duty in respect of the aforesaid goods manufactured
  and removed by them without payment of duty leviable thereon. They have
  also failed to file classification lists and price lists as required and failed to
  prepare and issue gate passes in the prescribed form for the removals of the
  aforesaid goods and further failed to maintain statutory accounts of the
C production and removal, and of the said goods manufactured by them in their
  factory and suppressed to supply the material facts with a deliberate and
  wilful intent fo evade payment of Central Excise Duty therefore, as rightly
  pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the conduct
  of the appellant, as above mentioned, invited the intervention of the Department
  since the appellant has committed the offence of the nature as described in
D clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-Rule (!) of Rule l 73Q of the Central
  Excise Rules'. 1944 by reason of wilfully misstatement and suppression of
  facts with an intent to evade payment of duty. We have perused the reply
  submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice to the Collector of
  Central Excise and Customs, Baroda. In our opinion, the reply submitted by
E them is not satisfactory_
        It is, therefore, seen that as per the admission of the appellant, the yam
  manufactured by them is special yam falling under Heading No. 56.06 and
  hence the notifications mentioned by them are not applicable in this case.
  They also failed to pay excise duty though they were required to pay duty
F and hence the action initiated by the preventive wing is correct. It is very
  clear from the findings of the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate
  authority that the yam in question consists of core yam and hence in view
  of the above clarification, the said yam is correctly classifiable under Heading
  No. 56.06. The contention of the appellant that they had carried out doubling
  of yam on simple crimping machine and hence fall under Chapters 50 to 55
G is not correct and not acceptable inasmuch as the partner of the said firm in
  his statement had specifically stated that for manufacture of the said yarn
  they had used special attachment known as Tensor and Ceramic guide which
  are not required for simple crimping of single yam and they also stated that
  the yarn under reference are manufactured in such a manner that out of the
H two yarns, one yam acts as a base and the other acts as a covering yarn.
              D.P. LON v. C.C.E. AND CUSTOMS [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.]                1135
    Therefore, the process in the particular case is bound to produce a special           A
    effect yam. The Collector of Central Excise, in our opinion, has correctly
    passed the order in original dated 29.3.1990 after discussing the issue at
    length and after considering all the arguments put forth by the notices including
    the relevant trade notices and also the Chemical Examiners' report. Likewise,
    the Tribunal also, after, giving careful consideration to the submissions made        B
    by both the sides did not find any merit in the rectification application and
    thus had correctly rejected the same. The Full Bench decision of the Tribunal
    wherein the decision taken in the case of Pratilk Crimpers (supra) will not
    be applicable to the instant case inasmuch as it was specifically discussed in
    the order rejecting ROM by the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
    Tribunal that in view of the process of manufacture there is a core yarn in           C
    the yarn in question and hence the same is classifiable under Heading No.
    56.06 and is liable to duty.

          For the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the yarn
    manufactured by the appellant is only 'Taspa' yam/fancy and is classifiable
    and chargeable to duty under Chapter Heading No. 56.06 of the Central                 D
    Excise Tariff and, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty for contravention
    of Rule 174 read with Section 6 etc. of the Central Excises and Salt Act,
    1944.

           We do not find any error of law or any perversity in the reasoning
    adopted by the Commissioner or by the Tribunal on the facts of these cases.           E
    On the contrary, in our view, the decision of the Commissioner and the
    Tribunal are well sustained on the evidence on record and calls for no
    interference in these appeals moved by the appellant. We, therefore, confirm
    the orders passed by the Commissioner as confirmed by the Central Excise
    and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and reject these appeals.                       p
          The appeals are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
    the case, we order no costs.

-   S.K.S.                                                        Appeals dismissed