9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 310 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit on PVC crates used for transporting aerated water in bottles - appellants engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages - Revenue denied credit on ground that appellants are collecting deposits from the customers on the PVC crates - Held that - CENVAT Credit is admissible once it satisfies the definition of input and such input is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. In the instant case the appellants had explained the use of such crates during the process of manufacture and disastrous consequence of non-use of such crates. In these circumstances the PVC crates being used as inputs/capital goods in the manufacture of aerated waters accordingly CENVAT Credit is admissible on the same - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original disallowing CENVAT credit on PVC crates used in manufacturing non-alcoholic beverages. Analysis: 1. Issue of CENVAT Credit Eligibility: The appellant contended that PVC crates used in the manufacturing process of non-alcoholic beverages qualify as inputs, just like glass bottles, essential for marketing the product. The appellant argued that the high-speed automatic machine cannot function without the PVC crates, and the entire manufacturing process depends on their use. Reference was made to various tribunal judgments supporting the admissibility of CENVAT credit on similar items. 2. Deposits on Crates: The Revenue argued that since the appellant collected security deposits on the PVC crates from customers, it indicated that the crates were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and should not qualify as inputs. The Revenue also alleged suppression by the appellant for not disclosing the collection of deposits to the department, invoking an extended period of limitation. However, the appellant countered that the collection of deposits should not disallow CENVAT credit as the amortized cost of the crates is included in the value of finished goods assessed under MRP-based assessment. 3. Limitation Period: The appellant claimed that the demand for CENVAT credit for the period 2000-2001 to 2003-2004 was time-barred as all relevant facts were submitted to the department earlier. The appellant argued that the demand should be considered barred by limitation. 4. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal analyzed various judgments, including those under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, to establish the admissibility of CENVAT credit on similar items. The Tribunal held that the definition of input under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, allows for credit on items like PVC crates used as material handling equipment in the factory premises, either as capital goods or inputs. The Tribunal emphasized that CENVAT credit is admissible if the item satisfies the definition of input and is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. 5. Decision: After considering submissions and perusing the record, the Tribunal found that the PVC crates were indeed used in the automatic process of placing bottles during the manufacturing of aerated water. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and previous tribunal judgments, concluding that CENVAT credit on PVC crates is admissible. The Tribunal set aside the order disallowing the credit, citing the importance of the crates in the manufacturing process and the inclusion of their cost in the value of finished goods. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
