1. Called Appeal for admission.
2. Heard Counsel.
3. P. C. The averments made in para 4 of the petition show that the blending of the different types of fabrics is done in the respondent company in what is known as the 'Blow Room'. The further averments show that thereafter the mixed fabrics undergo various processes and finally emerge from what are known as ring frames. At this stage, the commodity becomes fully manufactured yarn and is an excisable and commercial commodity. If such yarn is made for sale or for captive consumption for weaving, it is gathered on bobbins, cones, reels, etc. If it is to be sold, it could be sold in that stage and if it is to be used for weaving, it is wound on beams and then sized. These averments remain uncontroverted because there is no affidavit in reply, although the petition was heard three years after it was filed. These averments, in our view, clearly show that the commodity in question became complete yarn before it was sized and that sizing was done after it was wound on the beams. This would clearly suggest that sizing was not done in the spinning department but in the weaving department. This view is supported by the decision of the Delhi High Court in 1981 ELT 887. We are also told that in similar matters, in S.C.A. Nos. 471 of 1977, 1823 of 1977 and 1122 of 1981, the Supreme Court, by its order dated 6th September 1984, rejected the Special Leave Petitions filed by Union of India against the judgments of the Gujarat High Court.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.