2008 (3) TMI 561 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand confirmation and penalties imposition due to denial of credit for paper used in manufacturing corrugated boxes before the facility was operational.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the demand confirmation and penalties imposition based on the denial of credit for paper used in their manufacturing process before the corrugated box facility became operational. They argued that they were previously engaged in manufacturing glass items and had been procuring corrugated boxes from the market, along with paper used for wrapping glass products during packing. The appellants maintained that the paper in question was not cleared separately but was integrated into the final products' assessable value for excise duty payment purposes.

The Revenue's position was that the appellants did not maintain records of paper and corrugated boxes consumed internally before the manufacturing facility for boxes was established. They alleged that the appellants wrongfully claimed credit for paper used in manufacturing corrugated boxes before the facility's operational date.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' manufacturing process involving fragile glass items and accepted their explanation that the paper was indeed used for wrapping glass products before placing them in corrugated boxes. This assertion was made in response to the show cause notice and was documented in the adjudicating order. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence showing that the appellants had received and cleared the paper separately without paying duty. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the appellants included the paper's value in the final product's assessable value for duty payment. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contentions and allowed the appeals, ruling in their favor.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit for the paper used in manufacturing corrugated boxes before the facility's operational commencement was unfounded, as the appellants had adequately demonstrated the integration of paper into their manufacturing process and excise duty payment calculations.