1997 (6) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of Modvat credit for plastic crates used for transporting aerated water bottles.
2. Classification of plastic crates as packaging material.
3. Impact of specific rate duty on the inclusion of plastic crates' value in assessable value.
4. Applicability of Rule 57A for Modvat credit on plastic crates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Modvat Credit for Plastic Crates:
The primary issue in the appeal is whether plastic crates used for transporting aerated water bottles qualify for Modvat credit as packaging materials. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal, holding that plastic crates are eligible inputs as packaging materials. It was observed that plastic crates, similar to wooden crates, should be considered packaging material as they are used for transporting aerated water bottles, constituting secondary packing.

2. Classification of Plastic Crates as Packaging Material:
The Revenue contended that plastic crates were not considered essential packing material for transporting goods and should not be eligible for Modvat credit. However, the Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in G. Claridge and Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, determined that plastic crates qualify as packaging material. The Supreme Court had defined 'container' broadly to include any receptacle used for holding, storing, or transporting items, which applies to plastic crates.

3. Impact of Specific Rate Duty on Inclusion of Plastic Crates' Value:
The Revenue argued that since aerated bottles were assessed at a specific rate of duty, the value of crates was not collected from customers and thus should not affect the selling price of aerated waters. The Tribunal noted that this argument was irrelevant because the issue was whether plastic crates could be considered packaging material eligible for Modvat credit, not whether their value should be included in the assessable value of aerated waters.

4. Applicability of Rule 57A for Modvat Credit on Plastic Crates:
Rule 57A, as it was worded, included packaging materials as eligible inputs for Modvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that plastic crates used for repeated clearances of aerated waters, which were subject to a specific rate of duty, fell within the scope of 'input' as defined in Rule 57A. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's plea lacked merit and dismissed the appeal, affirming that plastic crates are eligible for Modvat credit as packaging materials.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, granting Modvat credit for plastic crates used in transporting aerated water bottles. It confirmed that plastic crates qualify as packaging material under Rule 57A, and their use in transporting aerated waters, which were subject to a specific rate of duty, does not exclude them from being considered eligible inputs for Modvat credit. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.