ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. Both these appeals arise from common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 15 & 16/97 (M) (D), dated 28-6-1996. In the impugned order, it is noted that both the appellants are manufacturers of HDPE/PP woven circular/flat woven sacks classifiable under Chapter Heading 6301.00 of CETA. During the relevant period, the Board issued an order under Section 37B directing the classification under Chapter Heading 3923.90 and as a result, show cause notice was issued for reclassifying the goods and demanding the differential duty. The same was contested but the Commissioner did not accept the appellant’s plea and confirmed the classification including the differential duty demand beyond 6 months prior to issue of SCN. The plea of appellant that in cases of reclassification the duty has to be computed prospectively and not retrospectively was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of the then Larger Bench judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Ballarpur Industries -1995 (76) E.L.T. 499. On the classification under Chapter Heading 3923.90 the issue since is settled with the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of H. M. Bags Manufactures v CCE -1997 (94) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the only question remaining now to be considered is as to whether the demands can be confirmed for 6 months prior to the SCN even in cases of reclassification of the product. The Apex Court in the case of Cotspun Ltd. -1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 held that it has to be only prospectively and demands in respect of reclassification of goods cannot be raised for six months prior to SCN. However, this judgment of the Apex Court has been nullified with the passing of the Finance Bill 2000. Under Section 110 of Finance Act, 2000 the Parliament has now held that demands can be raised even for six months prior to issue of SCN in cases of reclassification of goods also. Therefore, the present law is that demands can be raised for six months prior to the issue of SCN even in cases of reclassification of goods. Therefore, the findings given by the Commissioner is required to be upheld. The Commissioner has directed the lower authorities on re-determining the duty. On this, there is no Revenue appeal. There is also no Revenue appeal on the findings recorded by the Commissioner to grant benefit of Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. This findings has been recorded in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Formica India Division v CCE – 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 as the Revenue is not aggrieved with this grant of Modvat credit and the order re-determining the duty therefore, we are not inclined to disturb this portion of the order. There is no other ground requiring reconsideration and as the main ground has been held against the appellants, the appeals are therefore rejected.