9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s used for packaging/containing aerated water are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it existed during the material period? 2. Whether the cost of durable and returnable packing which is statutorily excludible for the purpose of determination of assessable value of a product under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be lawfully included in such assessable value at the option of any assessee for whatsoever reason? 3. Whether the Hon ble CEGAT s interpetation of Clause (b)(iii) of the explanation appended below Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it existed during the material period as contained at Para 7.1.1 to 7.1.3 of its impugned order dated 18-8-1997 is lawfully correct? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata value will not be a correct interpretation of the Circular and therefore it is a question of law. He has also drawn attention of the Bench that there are conflicting judgments of the various Benches of the Tribunal. For this proposition ld. SDR has drawn our attention to the judgments of Tribunal in the case of Amritsar Beverage Companies v. CCE [1996 (85) E.L.T. 359 (Tribunal)], which has held that plastic crates used for transportation of aerated waters will not qualify for benefit of Modvat credit. The Tribunal in its order in dealing with the said judgments we may state at this stage, has gone on to record as follows :- This judgment of a ld. Single Member denies Modvat credit on crates on the ground that the packaging materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law on the authorities of judgments of the Supreme Court that a Circular of the Board is binding on the Lower Authorities even if it is held to be erroneous. In one case the Apex Court has gone on to state that the Lower Authorities cannot even argue against the Circular. He therefore submits that the present application is merely frivolous in the face of the Board s Circular. And therefore the reference Application should be dismissed. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We have held in Para 7.1.5 of the Tribunal s order impugned before us in the present applications that Board s Circular dated 13-9-1995 correctly interprets the provisions of Rule 57A; l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has upheld the validity of the Board s Circular and the Revenue authorities are bound by the same as has been held by the Apex Court. Therefore Question No. 3 also cannot be referred to the High Court. 5. Question No. 2 is a question on the valuation of the excisable goods under Section 4 and therefore this question cannot be referred to in view of the provision of Section 35G. Regarding Question No. 4, Rule 57A is also as much a part of the Central Excise Law as Section 4. Both have to be read and applied; there is no conflict in the provisions of Section 4 and Rule 57A because the areas of operation of Rule 57A and Section 4 are different. Section 4 deals with valuation of the goods whereas Rule 57A deals with admissibility of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
