2007 (12) TMI 28 - HC - Central Excise

Reference petition tribunal was justified in allowing credit when C.A. s certificate prove that requirement of Rule 57A has been satisfied i.e. value of secondary packing are included in A.V. of aerated water no question of law arise HC can not reappreciate evidence

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to Tribunal's decision on Modvat credit allowance based on packing material cost inclusion in assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The reference petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed by the revenue challenging the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order allowing Modvat credit. The revenue sought direction for the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the validity of Modvat credit allowance based on a non-speaking order.

2. The revenue filed a petition seeking permission to reframe the question of law, focusing on whether the packing material cost, not included in the preceding financial year's assessable value of the final product, qualifies as an input for Modvat Credit.

3. The High Court, after hearing arguments and examining the record, found no merit in the reference petition. The Tribunal had relied on a previous case between the parties where Modvat credit was allowed based on the inclusion of the cost of glass bottles and plastic crates in the assessable value of aerated waters, satisfying Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

4. The Court noted that the assessee had provided a Chartered Accountant's certificate demonstrating the inclusion of the cost of glass bottles and plastic crates in the assessable value of aerated waters. As this fact was established, the Court concluded that there was no basis for interfering with the Tribunal's findings. The Court emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate evidence to reach a different conclusion merely because an alternative view is possible.

5. Consequently, the Court declined the revenue's prayer for reference to determine a question of law. As the reference was rejected, the Court deemed it unnecessary to issue any order concerning the petition seeking permission to reframe the question of law related to packing material cost inclusion for Modvat Credit qualification.