1988 (11) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri Vadivelu, the learned D.R., is that the Respondents herein are manufacturing HDPE sack and during the course of manufacture of HDPE sack, initially tapes were used as inputs and before manufacture, an excisable commodity viz. HDPE fabric classifiable under Tariff Item 22F of Central Excise Tariff, as it then stood, came into existence. The Respondents filed refund claims in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for Rs. 1,13,671.85 (M/s. Chitra Polypack Industries) and for Rs. 1,51,741.28 (M/s. H.M. Plastics Pvt. Ltd.) on the ground that the duty suffered by the raw material HDPE tapes, which went into the manufacture of HDPE sacks, would be entitled for set-off by virtue of applicability of Rules 9 & 49 of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. In the present case tapes are used as an input for the ultimate manufacture of HDPE sacks and both fall under the same Central Excise Tariff heading as it then stood at the relevant time. This position is not disputed and is indeed admitted by both sides. Even assuming for the purpose of argument that the manufacturers intermediate product is only HDPE fabric, as contended by the learned D.R., falling under a different Tariff of Central Excise, in our opinion that would not make any difference at all so far as the applicability of the benefit under Rule 56A or Rules 9 and 49 to the Respondents is concerned. We have gone through the Special Bench ruling, which has placed rel....