1997 (9) TMI 298 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Modvat credit on glass bottles and plastic crates used for packing aerated water.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Applicability of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Validity of the lower authorities' decisions denying Modvat credit.
5. Effect of previous Tribunal decisions and Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Modvat Credit on Glass Bottles and Plastic Crates:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether Modvat credit is admissible on glass bottles and plastic crates used for packing aerated water. The appellants contended that these items should be considered as packaging materials eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
Rule 57A stipulates that inputs do not include packaging materials, the cost of which is not included in the assessable value of the final products under Section 4 of the Act. The appellants argued that the cost of glass bottles and plastic crates was included in the assessable value of aerated water, thus making them eligible for Modvat credit. They cited the Tribunal's decision in C.C.E. v. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd., which held that plastic crates used as containers for aerated water bottles are to be considered packaging material and hence eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.

3. Applicability of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 4(4)(d)(i) provides that the value of excisable goods includes the cost of packing, except for packing that is durable and returnable. The appellants argued that cost and assessable value are different concepts, and the cost of durable and returnable packing material can be included in the assessable value on a pro-rata basis. They referred to the Tribunal's decisions in C.C.E. v. Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. and C.C.E. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which supported their position.

4. Validity of the Lower Authorities' Decisions Denying Modvat Credit:
The lower authorities had denied Modvat credit on the grounds that the cost of glass bottles and plastic crates was not included in the cost of aerated water. The appellants challenged this view, arguing that the cost of these materials was included in the assessable value of the final product. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments and held that Modvat credit would be admissible on crates and glass bottles before 1-3-1994.

5. Effect of Previous Tribunal Decisions and Circulars Issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs:
The appellants cited several Tribunal decisions and Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to support their case. The Tribunal referred to its decision in Black Diamond Beverages Ltd., which held that the cost of packaging material can be included on a pro-rata basis for each use. The Tribunal also noted that the Board's Circular dated 13-9-1995 correctly interpreted the provisions of Rule 57A and was binding on the authorities below.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that Modvat credit on glass bottles and plastic crates was admissible as long as their cost was included in the assessable value of the final product. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the cost of packing material, even on an installment basis, could be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal also upheld the lower authorities' decision regarding the inadmissibility of Modvat credit taken on the original copy of the invoice.

The judgment emphasized that the cost of durable and returnable packing materials can be included in the assessable value on a pro-rata basis, and Modvat credit should be granted accordingly. The Tribunal's decision aligns with the principles laid out in previous cases and Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

← Previous Next →