9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said bursted bags were subsequently cleared by the appellants on payment of duty, which was either debited by them from their RG 23A, Part II records or from PLA. 2. The appellants were issued show cause notices proposing recovery of Modvat credit in respect of the said bursted bags. Three adjudication orders were passed confirming demand of duty of Rs. 1,47,479/-. The said order passed by the original adjudicating authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). While upholding the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under :- On careful examination of case records, I find that the issue involved in these cases is denial of Modvat credit in respect of P.P. Paper Bags got burst/damaged prior to packing of cement dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facto have any role in the process of manufacture. Therefore, the Apex Court s decision in the case of CCE v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. [1989 (43) E.L.T. 201], as relied upon by the appellants, is distinguishable. Further, since such damaged/burst bags have not been used in the process of manufacture, Rule 57D will not come into operation, as rightly held by the lower authority in the impugned order. The case laws, cited by the appellants, are also distinguishable inasmuch as in all the cases, packing materials viz. glass bottles, metal containers, P.P. Corks etc. got managed broken in course of manufacturing operation, and hence, the same do not come to their rescue. 20. In view of the foregoing, I differ from the views taken by my ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and scrap. Shri Das has submitted that the duty paid by them on such bursted bags at the time of clearance was much more than the Modvat credit involved. As such, the Revenue s direction again to debit Modvat credit in respect of the bags in question is un-justified. 5. Shri Das has also submitted that earlier they were granted relief by the Commissioner (Appeals) as mentioned in the present impugned order. The Revenue had not filed any appeal against the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such the same had attained finality and the legal position was accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. WPIL Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Calcutta-III reported in 2003 (153 ) E.L.T. 565 (Tri.-Kolkata) has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
