2008 (3) TMI 517 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of input credit for plastic crates as capital goods or input.

Analysis:
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the availability of input credit concerning plastic crates, whether they should be considered as capital goods or inputs. The appellant, represented by Shri S.R. Dixit, Advocate, argued in favor of the availability of credit based on certain decisions. These decisions include Kellogg India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VIII, CCE, Noida v. Denso India Ltd., Nestle India Ltd. v. CCE, Goa, CCE, Salem v. Cheran Spinners, and GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-I. On the contrary, the Revenue, represented by Dr. M.K. Rajak, SDR, relied on decisions such as CCE, Salem v. PKPN Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., CCE, Salem v. Sugavaneswara Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., and Hindusthan Seals Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkatta-II, which held that plastic crates are not eligible for input credit as either capital goods or inputs.

The presiding judge, Ms. Archana Wadhwa, noted the conflicting decisions on the issue at hand. Given the divergence in the judicial opinions, the judge decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution. The order directed the Registry to forward the case papers to the Hon'ble President for the constitution of a Larger Bench. The judgment was pronounced in court on 4-3-2008.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the need for clarity on whether input credit for plastic crates should be treated as capital goods or inputs. The conflicting decisions presented by both the appellant and the Revenue necessitated the referral of the matter to a Larger Bench for a comprehensive resolution. The decision to seek clarification from a Larger Bench underscores the complexity and significance of the issue in question, aiming to establish a uniform interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions.