9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rve that if wooden crates can be considered as packaging material, there is no reason as to why plastic crates should not be considered so. It is also an admitted fact that such plastic crates are being used to transport aerated water bottles from one place to another and they are definitely in the nature of a secondary packing. Therefore I hold that plastic crates are eligible inputs as packaging materials and since during the relevant period aerated waters were subjected only to a specific rate of duty, the question of adding the value of plastic crates in the assessable value of the aerated water bottles also would not be relevant (sic). In view of the above discussions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.". The Revenue is aggrieved of the findings of the learned lower authority and the following grounds have been urged in the grounds of appeal : 2. During the period in question, the aerated bottles were assessed to specific rate of duty with reference to bottles and not crates. Thus the crates were not considered as an essential packing material for transport of goods. Collector (Appeals) has therefore, erred in observing that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that a 'container' is a receptacle which holds, restrains or encloses the item to be stored or transported and that the egg tray and other similar products manufactured by the appellant are 'containers' because they are receptacles for holding, storing and transporting the things kept in them. It has been urged that a 'tray' is a shallow lidless container and merely because an egg tray is described as a tray does not mean that it is not a 'container'. It is contended that egg trays are so designed as to protect the eggs from breakage and that egg trays provide the best mode for storage and transport of eggs. The learned counsel has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in proceeding on the basis that egg tray and other similar products manufactured by the appellant cannot be regarded as 'containers' because when a single egg tray is reversed or turned upside down or tilted sideways vertically at 90o angle, the contents would fall down. The submission of the learned counsel is that it is not required that a container should be closed from all sides and that a container can also be open. The expression 'container' has been thus defined in the dictionaries and Glossar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'cartons, boxes' and is followed by the words 'and cases'. It is a well-accepted canon of statutory construction that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. It is based on the principle the words take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. [See : Dr. Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujarat - 1969 (1) SCR 235 at p. 240]. Considering the expression 'containers' in the context in which it is used in the relevant tariff item, we are of the opinion that the said expression has to be construed to mean 'packing containers' which are analogous to boxes and cartons, that is, an enclosed receptacle which can be used for storage and transportation of articles. Egg trays being receptacles which are not covered or enclosed cannot be used for transportation of articles and, therefore, they cannot be regarded as 'containers' under the above-mentioned entries in the Excise Tariff." (Emphasis supplied by us). 4.4. Case of a plastic crate is stronger than that of an egg tray considered by the Court. Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Since we are considering the case of Modvat credit taken before 1-3-1994 when 'aerated waters' were liable to specific rate of duty, this plea is not relevant at all. 4.7. We may also mention at this stage that respondents' reliance on C.B.E.C.'s Circular No. 148/59/95-CX, dated 13-9-1995 [1995 (79) E.L.T. T50] in support of their claim for Modvat credit on plastic crate is also not relevant since the said circular speaks of the change in duty structure from "specific to ad valorem". In other words, the circular is relevant only w.e.f. 1-3-1994 and not for earlier period. 3. The respondents are absent despite notice. 4. We observe the Rule 57A as it was then worded reads as under : Rule 57A. Applicability. - (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to such finished excisable goods (hereinafter, referred to as the "final products"), as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf for the purpose of allowing credit of any duty of excise or the additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as may be specified in the said notification (hereinafter, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
