2003 (4) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... heard Shri S.N. Sinha Mahapatra, ld. Advocate, appearing of the appellants and Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. SDR, for the Revenue. 3.The process of manufacture of the appellants' product as detailed in the impugned order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is as under : "For the purposes of manufacture of the impugned products, the appellant sends the HDPE granules falling under Heading No. 39.01 to their job worker who in turn manufacture HDPE strips from the said granules by polymerisation extrusion and rolling and then into HDPE woven fabrics which are brought back by the appellants in their factory where the HDPE fabrics are laminated on both the sides with polyethylene granules like LDPE/HDPE/RPG/colouring materials and such pieces ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... XI dealing with textile and articles. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has also relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Paharpur Plastics reported in 1999 (110) E.L.T. 560 (T) = 1999 (33) R.L.T. 20 (CEGAT) as also on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Raj Pack Well Ltd. reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 201 (M.P.). Reliance has also been made to the following decision in support of the contention that HDPE fabrics, coated with LDPE on both sides are classifiable as other articles under sub-heading No. 3926.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 : (i)        In the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Texel Plastics - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 286 (....