Full Judgment
2. We find that the Department contends that all the items mentioned above are in the nature of parts of paper machine and are, therefore, excluded from the coverage of inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the case of Straw Products Ltd. v. CCES and Customs reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 572, the Tribunal while considering the eligibility to benefit of Modvat credit on items such as felt etc., used in paper making, held that parts of machines are not excluded from the scope of inputs under Rule 57A. The Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 upheld the decision in the case of Straw Products. The relevant paragraphs of the Larger Bench decision are Paras 23 to 26 and 28. Since the Larger Bench has already held that the items such as felt, wire mesh and synthetic cloth which are parts of machines are not covered by the exclusion clause of the explanation to Rule 57A, we hold that the items are eligible for credit; accordingly we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.