9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (12) TMI 312 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
Availability of Modvat credit for duty paid on bottles used for aerated water. Analysis: The primary issue in the five appeals filed by the Revenue was the availability of Modvat credit to the Respondents, M/s. Mohan Bottling Co. Ltd., concerning the duty paid on bottles used for aerated water. The Respondents did not appear during the hearing, and the notice was returned undelivered. The Revenue argued that the cost of glass bottles was not included in the assessable value of the aerated water. However, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings based on certificates from the Cost Accountant showing that the cost of bottles was included in the assessable value. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing precedent cases. The Revenue contended that the cost of packaging should include not only the basic price but also taxes and other expenses. They referred to relevant case law to support their position. Upon review, it was found that both lower authorities had confirmed the inclusion of the cost of glass bottles in the assessable value. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to challenge this finding. The Explanation to Rule 57A stated that inputs do not include packaging materials unless their cost is part of the final product's assessable value. The Tribunal's decision in previous cases supported the inclusion of bottle costs in the value of aerated water. The Tribunal emphasized that the Chartered Accountant's certification regarding the inclusion of bottle values was crucial. Considering the lack of evidence disputing the lower authorities' findings, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the criteria for including the cost of glass bottles in the assessable value of aerated water for Modvat credit eligibility. It highlighted the importance of proper documentation and adherence to established principles in determining the cost components. The decision underscored the significance of supporting evidence and the application of relevant legal provisions and precedents in resolving excise duty matters.
|
