2007 (4) TMI 73 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of credit - Department contended that appellant is required to reversed the credit on the quantity of input didn t utilize into the final product - Held that the department contention is not correct and allowed the appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit for damaged packing material.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57(D) regarding credit reversal.
3. Permission for destruction of damaged material delayed by the department.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a manufacturer using "flexible laminated plastic film" as packing material for Pan Masala and Gutkha, availing Cenvat credit for the same. Some packing material got damaged during the manufacturing process, leading to the accumulation of unusable material which was cleared and destroyed by burning at a nominal value of Rs. 1 per kg. The original authority sought to deny the Cenvat credit and imposed a penalty, contending that since the damaged inputs did not go into the final product, the credit should be reversed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, citing the benefit under Rule 57(D) and a precedent case. The respondent argued that the damaged material was not usable or marketable, justifying the non-reversal of credit.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the mere fact that a portion of the input did not go into the final product did not necessitate the reversal of credit, emphasizing the application of Rule 57(D). The learned advocate for the respondent clarified that the damaged material was a result of the packing process, not a case of unused material, and due to the delay in permission for destruction, it was invoiced at a nominal value and destroyed. The argument centered on the unusability and lack of market value of the damaged material, supporting the position against credit reversal.

3. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing that the damaged packing material was a consequence of the packing process and not a case of material being unused. It was highlighted that no valid grounds were presented to challenge the Commissioner's findings and reasoning. Consequently, the appeal by the Department was rejected, affirming the eligibility of the respondent for the Cenvat credit under Rule 57(D) in the context of damaged packing material.