9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 158 - AT - Central ExciseCredit of duty paid on jumbo bags which were used for transportation of the imported raw sugar from port to factory - jumbo bags were not actually used as packing material for finished goods in the factory containers used for inward transportation of input does not come within the ambit of the definition of input hence not eligible for input credit - claim of capital goods credit on bags was not raised before any of the authorities below, so can t be raised before tribunal for first time
Issues:
Claim for CENVAT credit on jumbo bags as inputs or capital goods. Analysis: The appellants, who are sugar and molasses manufacturers, imported raw sugar for conversion into refined sugar and availed CENVAT credit of the duty paid on jumbo bags used for transportation. The appeal claimed that the bags were also used for storage in the factory. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, stating that the bags were solely used for transporting raw material from port to factory, with no evidence of storage use. The definition of "input" under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, was crucial in determining eligibility for credit. The appellants argued that the jumbo bags qualified as "input" as packing material, but the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the bags were not used for finished goods packing in the factory. Previous judgments also supported the ineligibility of such containers for credit. The appellants only sought capital goods credit for the jumbo bags, which was also rejected. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal. The judgment emphasized that the jumbo bags did not meet the criteria for CENVAT credit as inputs, as they were not used for finished goods packing in the factory. The claim for capital goods credit was also denied, as the bags were deemed ineligible for such credit. The decision was based on a careful analysis of the submissions and relevant legal provisions, ultimately finding no merit in the appellant's claims.
|
