Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (5) TMI 467

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iners to the appellants being essential packing material for packing of laminated pouches of pan masala. 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of pan prag brand pan Masala and had been availing Modvat credit on inputs which included packing material adhesive tapes, polythene bags etc. They were producing pan masala in pouches of 1.75 gms., 4.00 gms, and tin containers of 100 gms., 250 gms and 1000 gms. Earlier to 28-2-1997 they had been paying Central Excise duty at the rate of 40% ad valorem on wholesale prices but after the issuance of Notification No. 5/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1997 under which tariff values were fixed they started paying the Central Excise duty on so fixed tariff values. They had been also filing declarat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellants have come in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that since the jars/containers were being used as packing material for packing pouches of the product pan masala, they were entitled to take the Modvat credit thereon legally and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly disallowed the same. In support of this contention, Counsel has placed reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in (1) Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), (2) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 150 (Tribunal), (3) Cadbury India Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 1998 (104) E.L.T. 490 (Tribunal), (4) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 1998 (97) E.L.T. 310 (Tribunal), (5) C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e retail agencies or instrumentatlities for consumption by an individual or a group of individuals. The retail sale of the pan masala was being made by the appellants in small pouches weighing 2 gms or less, 2 to 4 gms. and 5 to 10 gms. or in the tin container of 100 gms. The pet jars/plastic containers were not used by them for the direct packing of the pan masala. They were using these jars and containers only for putting the retail packing i.e. laminated pouches of the pan masala. It is not the case of the appellants that the retail sale of the pan masala could not take place in laminated pouches or tin containers without putting them in the pet jars or plastic containers. The pet jars and plastic containers were being used by them not a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE (supra) it has been only observed that the packing material was not includible from the purview of input where the final product was liable to specific rate of duty and were not affected by any inclusion of cost of packing material but such is not the position in the case in hand. The tariff value for retail packages of the pan masala has been fixed by the Government under Notification No. 5/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1997 and what would be the retail package had been also defined in the Explanation appended to that notification. The packing of the appellants in jars and containers of the pan masala does not stand covered under that Explanation. 10. In Cadbury India Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore (supra) it has been only o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e bottles of aerated water and Modvat credit was allowed thereon, but such is not the position in the instant case. 13. The second argument of the counsel that the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices as there was no reference to the Notification No. 5/97-C.E. (N.T.) in question in it, is wholly misconceived and not liable to be accepted. The bare perusal of the show cause notices shows that specific reference to the Notification No. 5/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1997 under which the tariff value of pan masala was fixed had been made by the Excise Department. Therefore, the question of travelling beyond the scope of show cause notices by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not arise. He has rightly in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates