1999 (10) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... still be eligible for Modvat credit during that period i.e. March, 1994 to May, 1994. 2. In the instant case, the Tribunal in para 7 had held that We have considered the submissions. The appellants have contended that the authorities below have failed to appreciate their submissions relating to the scope of the exclusion clause under Rule 57A in relation to HDPE bags and sacks. It is contended that there is no mention of HDPE bags in the said exclusion clause but it only talked of bags or sacks made of fabrics woven from strips or tapes of plastic. It was their contention that exclusion clause did not affect bags falling under Heading No. 39.23. Such bags would be outside the purview of the exclusion clause. The Madhya Pradesh High Cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... woven from strips or tapes of plastics is wrong because HDPE is also a plastic material. He submits that the assessee in his above contention stating that bags/sacks made from strip/tapes of plastics are denied Modvat credit; that the bags/sacks made of fabrics/tapes of plastics are eligible to Modvat credit; that the contention of the assessee was incorrect and illogical only to justify their claim. Ld. JDR submits that the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Orissa Cement [1994 (69) E.L.T. 357]. He submits that this Tribunal did not take into consideration that the period in that case was prior to 17-9-1990 while in the instant case the period is March, 1994 to May, 1994; that the exclusion clause came into ef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt in Rajpack Well, 1990 (50) E.L.T. 201 (M.P.) = l993 ((45) ECR 351 had held that HDPE sacks/bags were classifiable under Heading No. 39.23 and under sub-heading 3923.90. It was contended by the assessee that the exclusion clause (vi) was intended to deny Modvat credit only to sacks/bags made from fabrics classifiable under heading 63.01 and not to others and that HDPE bags/sacks made from strip/tapes of plastics are not hit by the mischief of the exclusion clause and the item presently under dispute do not come within the exclusion clause, therefore Modvat facility was rightly taken by the appellants on the said items. The Tribunal, therefore held that the contention of the appellants is not in dispute after the decision of this Tribuna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X