1997 (3) TMI 314 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against allowing Modvat credits on glass bottles and plastic crates
- Calculation of cost structure and inclusion of various elements
- Allegation of claiming abatement on rent for durable and returnable containers
- Admissibility of Modvat credit on glass bottles and crates
- Compliance with Rule 57A and relevant case law regarding rental charges
- Consideration of grounds beyond show cause notice at the Appellate stage

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the department challenging the order allowing Modvat credits on glass bottles and plastic crates used by the respondents in bottling aerated water. The department raised concerns about the accuracy of the claimed 40 times rotation of bottles and the inclusion of only plastic shells in the cost structure, while wooden shells were also used. Additionally, the department questioned the inclusion of glass bottles and crates in the cost structure certificate issued by a different firm than the company's auditors. The department also highlighted the collection of rent on containers per crate and argued that Section 4 does not provide for the inclusion of such costs.

The Judge noted that no representation was made by the department during the hearing. Drawing parallels with a similar case, the Judge proceeded to evaluate the matter on its merits. Upon examination, it was found that the cost of glass bottles and plastic crates was included in the manufacturing cost of the final product on a pro-rata basis over time. The respondents clarified that the rent on containers was for the usage of durable and returnable containers, which did not affect the admissibility of Modvat credit. The certification of 40 times rotation of bottles by a Chartered Accountant was accepted, and the adjudicating authority had valid reasons for allowing Modvat credits on the goods.

The Judge referenced relevant case law, including a Supreme Court decision, to establish that rental charges for durable containers are not to be included in the assessable value. It was also noted that the adjudicating authority provided sound reasoning for allowing Modvat credits on glass bottles and plastic crates. The Judge emphasized that issues beyond the show cause notice could not be considered at the Appellate stage. Ultimately, based on the findings and a previous order in a similar case, the appeal filed by the department was rejected, upholding the decision of the adjudicating authority.