2012 (6) TMI 369 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit of duty paid on products sold under combo scheme of goods manufactured - appellant, manufacturer of insulated wares, under sales promotion scheme introduced combo scheme of products manufactured by it including ceramic mugs purchased - Revenue denied credit on ground that ceramics mugs is not input and is not required for the manufacture - Held that - In the definition of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, in respect of items specified for amendment on the basis of value under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of MRP, packing, repacking, labeling etc are specified as amounting to manufacture. Further Tribunal in case of Gupta Soaps (2007 (3) TMI 29 (Tri)) even allowed cenvat credit of duty paid on product which was not notified u/s 4A. Hence, CENVAT Credit of duty paid on ceramic mugs is allowable as input credit - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on ceramic mugs and tea cup saucers purchased as finished goods.
2. Determination of whether ceramic mugs are considered inputs for the manufacturing process.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions regarding CENVAT Credit eligibility.
4. Comparison with previous judicial decisions on similar cases.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on ceramic mugs and tea cup saucers purchased as finished goods by the appellant, a manufacturer of insulated wares. The Department contended that these items did not qualify as inputs under Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, leading to a demand for recovery of wrongly availed credit.

2. The appellant introduced a combo pack including ceramic mugs along with other manufactured items. The Department argued that ceramic mugs were not essential inputs for the manufacturing process of the appellant's products, thus challenging the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on these items.

3. The appellant relied on legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a similar case involving a combo pack of toothbrush and toothpaste. The court held that the process of repacking and labeling amounted to manufacture, making the duty paid on the toothbrush admissible for CENVAT Credit. The appellant also cited a Tribunal judgment on a soap and plastic dish combo pack, where credit on the plastic dish was allowed despite not being notified under Section 4A.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, concluded that the CENVAT Credit on ceramic mugs should be allowed as input credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellant.

In summary, the judgment resolved the issues by determining the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on ceramic mugs, emphasizing the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and comparing the case with previous judicial decisions to reach a final decision in favor of the appellant.