Yomika Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. heard shri satnam singh, ld. s.d.r. for the revenue. the party requests to decide the case on merits.2. the issue involved in this case is whether items are entitled to benefit in terms of notification 223/86.3. the sdpe sacks were classified under chapter 63 of the tariff and the department denied the benefit in terms of the aforesaid notification. it was brought to our notice that the madhya pradesh high court has taken the view that items sdpe sacks, etc. are classifiable under chapter 39, as reported in the case of raj packwell industries reported in 1990 (50) e.l.t. 201 and since then the tribunal has been remanding the matter to the concerned authorities for de novo consideration. in view of the consistent view, we are remanding this matter to the concerned jurisdictional authorities to decide the issue afresh in the light of the verdict given by the madhya pradesh high court in the case referred to above and during the re-adjudication proceedings, the party is at liberty to urge benefit under any other notification if it is permissible. accordingly, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Judgment:
1. Heard Shri Satnam Singh, ld. S.D.R. for the Revenue. The party requests to decide the case on merits.

2. The issue involved in this case is whether items are entitled to benefit in terms of Notification 223/86.

3. The SDPE sacks were classified under Chapter 63 of the Tariff and the department denied the benefit in terms of the aforesaid notification. It was brought to our notice that the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken the view that items SDPE sacks, etc. are classifiable under Chapter 39, as reported in the case of Raj Packwell Industries reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 201 and since then the Tribunal has been remanding the matter to the concerned authorities for de novo consideration. In view of the consistent view, we are remanding this matter to the concerned jurisdictional authorities to decide the issue afresh in the light of the verdict given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case referred to above and during the re-adjudication proceedings, the party is at liberty to urge benefit under any other notification if it is permissible. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.