1992 (9) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tapes or strips and HDPE sacks manufactured therefrom. The department has classified HDPE strips or tapes under Heading 5406.90 of the Schedule to the CET Act, 1985 while the assessees have claimed classification under Heading 3920.32. HDPE Sacks were classified under heading 5406.90 instead of the claim under 3922.90 from the period 28-2-86 to 28-2-87 and thereafter Heading 3926.90 of the Schedule of CET Act, 1985. The Counsel for the appellants, has filed a detailed chart in respect of the appeals. The details of the same are reproduced below - Sl. No. Appeal No. Name of the Appellant Issue SCN dated Period under refund Amount of refund Heading & Sub-heading under which duty paid Heading & Sub-heading under which claim o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect of appeal No. E/212/90-D in the case of Arm Polymers Limited and in the remaining cases, it pertains to refund of duty paid and the appellants claim for classification under Chapter 39 as articles of plastics carrying nil rate of duty. 3. We have heard Shri K.B. Trivedi, learned Advocate, for the appellants, and Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, learned DR for the respondents. The learned Advocate submitted that this matter is no longer res integra as the Tribunal has already gone into the aspect of classification in the case of Kanpur Plastipacks v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in (Order Nos. 407 to 409/92-D, dated 21-9-92) and has held that the ruling of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Raj Pack well & Others ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for classification under Heading 54 as articles of textile and after careful consideration has rejected the same and has held that the goods are classifiable under Chapter 39 as articles of plastics. The Hon'ble High Court has also taken into consideration the rulings rendered by the Tribunal under the erstwhile Tariff as in the case of Shri Radhey Industries, Kalol, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 379 and M/s. Shellya Industries, Bangalore, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1827 and has held that even as per these rulings, the impugned goods are articles of plastics and not articles of textiles. The findings given by the Tribunal in the case of Kanpur Plastipacks Ltd. at Para 5 are reproduced below - "We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides ....