ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Appellant has desired that the case be decided on merits.
2. Heard learned JDR, Shri R.S. Sangia in respect of the Revenue’s case. We have also gone through the appeal memo, impugned order and other relevant papers on records. Question involved hereunder is whether HDPE sacks manufactured out of fabric produced on circular looms is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 223/86-C.E. or not. This notification granted exemption to woven sacks from whole of duty leviable thereon except sacks which are manufactured on circular looms. The appellants initially paid duty on such sacks manufactured out of circular fabric on consideration that the benefit of the said notification is not available to them. Later on, they filed refund claims for the period 1-1-1990 to 10-3-1990 and 7-8-1989 to 20-12-1989. The lower authorities have rejected the claims on the ground that the benefit of notification would not be available to HDPE sacks manufactured out of circular fabric produced on circular looms. Hence this appeal before us.
3. Appellants have stated that the notification as it stood during the relevant period merely excluded sacks manufactured on circular looms from the benefit of the said notification. The sacks are manufactured by them on stitching and cutting machines; circular looms merely produced circular fabric. Therefore benefit of the said notification could not be denied to them.
4. In their support they have also pleaded that the said notification was amended in 1990 by Notification No. 57/90, dated 20-3-1990 by adding the following explanation:-
“Explanation. – For the purpose of this notification, woven sack would be deemed to have been woven on circular looms if such sacks are made out of fabric woven on Circular looms.”
This amendment, it has been contended by the appellant, supports their case that the notification applied to them for HDPE sacks manufactured by them prior to 20-3-1990. Hence, it is contended that Order-in-Appeal be set aside and the refund claims be allowed.
5. Opposing the contentions learned JDR, Shri R.S. Sangia reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that when the Notification 223/86-C.E., as it existed during the relevant period, excluded the benefit of the notification to sacks manufactured on circular looms, it could only be sacks manufactured out of circular fabric produced on such looms. He submits that it is common knowledge that looms can produce only the fabric and not the sacks as such. Therefore the intention is very clear. If this construction to the proviso to the Notification 223/86-C.E. is not adopted, it will be rendering the proviso nugatory which is not permissible under the law. Notification has to be construed only in that manner.
6. Apart from that he also makes a submission that the amendment made by Notification 57/90, dated 20-3-1990 by adding an explanation to the notification is also very significant. This type of notification, he submits, is always of a clarificatory nature. Therefore, the Notification 57/90, dated 20-3-1990 merely clarifies what was implicit in the notification earlier. This amending notification, he submits, supports the Revenue rather than the appellants.
7. We have carefully considered the pleas. We agree with the submissions of the learned JDR, Shri R.S. Sangia. The explanation added to 20-3-1990 to Notification 223/86-C.E. is of a clarificatory nature otherwise the proviso would be rendered nugatory as pointed out by the learned JDR. Hence we do not find any substance in these two appeals before us. Consequently we dismiss the same.