2000 (8) TMI 692 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on the manufacture of interleaving trays.
2. Classification of interleaving trays as excisable items.
3. Marketability of interleaving trays.
4. Consideration of interleaving trays as packing material.
5. Interpretation of Rule 57D(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the denial of Modvat credit on the manufacture of interleaving trays made from waste paperboards. The appellants argued that these trays were not marketable and did not qualify as excisable goods. They contended that the trays were used as separators and not declared as final products, thus challenging the denial of Modvat credit. The Commissioner disallowed the credit, considering the trays as excisable items under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

2. The issue of classifying interleaving trays as excisable items was raised. The Commissioner categorized them under Chapter 48 without specifying the exact heading or sub-heading. The appellants argued that the trays were not marketable and did not meet the criteria of excisable goods. The burden of proving marketability was on the Revenue, and the mere specific dimensions of the trays did not establish marketability.

3. The marketability of interleaving trays was a crucial point of contention. The appellants emphasized that the trays were not commercial products and were solely used as separators. They cited various legal precedents to support their argument that marketability is essential for an item to be considered excisable. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of marketability, shifting the onus onto them.

4. Considering interleaving trays as packing material was another aspect of the case. The appellants asserted that if the trays were part of the packing material included in the final product's value, Modvat credit should be allowed. They referred to a previous case where such packing materials were deemed eligible for credit. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and highlighted the inclusion of tray costs in the final product's value.

5. The interpretation of Rule 57D(2) of the Central Excise Rules was crucial. The appellants argued that the trays should be considered intermediate products under this rule, as they were used in the manufacturing process and were integral to the final product. Legal precedents and Tribunal decisions were cited to support this interpretation. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation and set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants.