1996 (1) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of Modvat credit on wasted/damaged tin containers used in the manufacturing process.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of Modvat credit on wasted/damaged tin containers
The appellants contested the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) regarding the admissibility of Modvat credit on wasted/damaged tin containers used in the manufacturing process of 'Active 25'. The Collector (Appeals) held that the claim for Modvat credit on such containers was unsubstantiated and inadmissible as the appellants failed to prove that the tin containers were wasted/damaged during the manufacturing process. The appellants argued that the Collector (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the show cause notice and misinterpreted Rule 57D by not considering that any damage to even one piece of tin renders the entire unit useless and wasted.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 57D and relevant case laws
The learned Counsel cited various decisions to support the appellants' claim for Modvat credit on wasted/damaged containers. The decisions highlighted that waste and scrap arising during the manufacturing process of a final product are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57D. The Tribunal's rulings in cases involving rejected goods during testing, defective tubes, waste glass bottles, and essential items for making a final product marketable were referenced to argue that damaged tin containers should also qualify as inputs eligible for Modvat credit.

Issue 3: Arguments and findings
The Department contended that damage to the containers could have occurred before their use in the manufacturing process since they were used as packing material. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and case laws cited, concluded that the containers were indeed inputs that made the final product marketable. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Department to refute the appellants' claim that damage or waste occurred during the manufacturing process. It was established that Modvat credit cannot be denied based on the presence of part of the credit in wasted/damaged inputs. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to Modvat Credit on the damaged/wasted containers, provided they disposed of the damaged or wasted material as per Rule 57F(4)(c).

Conclusion:
In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants' entitlement to Modvat credit on the wasted/damaged tin containers used in the manufacturing process of 'Active 25'.