9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to outside job worker for converting them into printed cartons. The authorities however later realised that kraft paper falling under Heading 4804.19 was being converted into printed cartons and the kraft paper said to have been used as packing material for Chocolate could not be considered as raw material for making printed cartons. Permission granted under Rule 57F(2) was revoked and the MODVAT Credit taken by the Respondents was directed to be reversed by the learned Assistant Collector of Central Excise. On appeal by the Respondents, the Collector (Appeals), held as under :- I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the points contained in the memorandum of appeal. The contention of the Asstt. Collector is not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual packing material herein is Printed Card Board Boxes and unless duty has been paid on the Printed Card Board Boxes, MODVAT Credit cannot be availed. Further, credit of duty on packing material would be admissible only when packing material is brought on payment of duty into the manufacturer s premises in a ready-to-use-condition. In this case, the duty paid Kraft paper was not brought into the manufacturer s premises, in a ready-to-use-condition. It was subjected to further process of manufacture of Printed Card Board Boxes by a job worker, brought back to Assessees premises and subsequently put to use by the Asses-sees for packing of finished products. As such, the Assessees are not entitled to credit of duty paid on the Kraft p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that MODVAT Credit on the input raw materials which go into the making of packaging material will not be available in respect of specified finished product. The Tribunal in that case has held as under :- The question whether the appellants would be entitled to take MODVAT Credit on the raw materials which are going to the manufacture of the packing material falls for consideration. The manner of utilisation of the inputs and the credit allowed in respect of the duty paid thereon is covered by Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules and in the present case it has to be seen as to whether the appellants case would be covered by the provisions of this Rule. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57F provides for the removal of inputs received by a manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials as such. Using them bags which are packaging materials are manufactured. The bags represent the final stage of manufacture as far as they are concerned. They do not constitute intermediate products for the detergent powder. It has been contended by the appellants that the term - intermediate product has not been defined in the Central Excise Rules. The term can only mean the products obtained from the raw materials in the course of manufacture of the final product. Here the final product is detergent product and it is not manufactured from either polythene granules or plastic bags which are made therefrom to enable the latter to be considered as intermediate products for detergent powder. For the purpose of Rule 57J, it is not as if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
