1999 (2) TMI 285 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application filed by Revenue seeking stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 34/98 passed by Commissioner regarding grant of Modvat credit for glass bottles.
2. Whether the cost of glass bottles should be included in the assessable value of aerated water.
3. Whether Modvat credit can be claimed for durable and returnable glass bottles.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue filed a stay application in their appeal to seek a stay on the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 34/98 passed by the Commissioner regarding the grant of Modvat credit for glass bottles. The Commissioner noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the CEGAT and the Boards' letter, and after considering all aspects of the law, allowed the appeals and set aside the demands.

2. The main issue raised was whether the cost of glass bottles should be included in the assessable value of aerated water. The Chartered Accountant's certificates provided by the assessee indicated that the cost per crate of aerated water included the cost of bottles. The Tribunal had previously held that if the cost of glass bottles is included in the assessable value of aerated waters, then Modvat credit can be claimed. The Tribunal found that the Chartered Accountant's certificates were valid evidence, and the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge them.

3. Another key issue was whether Modvat credit could be claimed for durable and returnable glass bottles. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and established that if the manufacturers included the cost of glass bottles in the assessable value of aerated water, Modvat credit would be available even for durable and returnable bottles. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay application and dismissed the appeals, upholding the Order-in-Appeal and accepting the Chartered Accountant's certificates as valid evidence.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeals.