1995 (10) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty demanded in the impugned order.
2. Denial of MODVAT Credit in respect of glass bottles and crates.
3. Inclusion of cost of packing materials in the assessable value.
4. Eligibility for MODVAT Credit in respect of bottles and crates.
5. Opportunity to adduce evidence for MODVAT Credit eligibility.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an application seeking dispensation of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 43,86,814 demanded in the impugned order. The appellants contended that they were denied MODVAT Credit for glass bottles and crates used in manufacturing aerated waters due to the alleged non-inclusion of their value in the assessable value. The appellants provided data and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant indicating the inclusion of the cost of bottles and crates. They argued that the lower appellate authority failed to consider this evidence, leading to a misdirection. The appellants emphasized that the cost of packing materials was factored into the specific duty rate in 1993-94 and cited a circular supporting MODVAT Credit availability for packing materials if their cost was included in the assessable value.

Regarding the eligibility for MODVAT Credit, the appellants highlighted the need to address breakages, depreciation, and the assumption of cost inclusion during the specific duty rate period. The judgment noted the lower authority's reliance on assumptions without sufficient rational basis and failure to delve into the specifics of the issue. The court observed that the lower authority's order lacked depth and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of addressing breakages, depreciation, and the inclusion of packing material costs in the assessable value. The court directed the appellants to be given a fair opportunity to present evidence and address the issues raised.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of thoroughly examining the eligibility for MODVAT Credit, particularly in relation to the inclusion of packing material costs in the assessable value. The court's decision to remand the matter for a reconsideration underscores the need for a detailed analysis and a fair opportunity for the appellants to substantiate their claims.