2003 (12) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the appellant obtaining unpacked bars of detergent from another person, packing them inside the packing of detergent powder it manufactured, and claiming credit under 57A for duty paid on the unpacked bars. The dispute arose when the authorities proposed recovery of the credit, arguing that the packing activity did not constitute manufacture.

Summary:

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case, dealt with the appellant's practice of packing unpacked detergent bars obtained from another person into the packing of detergent powder it produced, and claiming credit under 57A for duty paid on the unpacked bars. The authorities challenged this practice, contending that the packing activity did not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to the decision in Standard Surfactants Ltd. v. CCE, where a similar issue was addressed. The Tribunal in that case emphasized the liberal approach towards granting input credit, stating that credit can be allowed for any item in or in relation to the manufacture process. Citing this precedent, the Tribunal found the demand for recovery of credit to be unjustified and set aside the duty demand.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced decisions in Singh Scrap Processors Ltd. v. CCE and CCE, Mumbai v. Piramal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., where it was established that even if duty was not payable on the finished goods due to the absence of manufacture, the utilization of credit towards duty payment negated the need for further recovery actions.

Based on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's packing activity qualified for credit under 57A, and therefore, the impugned order was set aside. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.