9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed boxes are supplied by the manufacturer to the pet jar manufacturers who in turn supplies the pet jars and the corrugated boxes to the appellant. The pet jar manufacturer was advised that while paying duty he should include the cost of the corrugated box also and accordingly for the purpose of payment of excise duty, the cost of corrugated boxes was also included and accordingly duty liability was discharged by the manufacturer of the pet jar. Appellant took the credit of duty paid by the pet jar manufacturer and utilized the same for payment of duty on the confectionery. Further, since the corrugated boxes had been invoiced in the name of the appellant though the supply was routed through the pet jar manufacturer, at the time of discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the pet jar has been taken correctly. As regards the value, the pet jar manufacturer has deducted the cost of corrugated boxes while raising the invoice since he had not paid for the same. The cost of packing is required to be included as per Central Excise Law even when the same is supplied by the purchaser. Therefore, the duty paid by the pet jar manufacturer is perfectly in order. As regards corrugated boxes, the corrugated boxes have been invoiced in the name of the appellant but the supply has been routed through the job worker. The appellants have taken credit correctly on the corrugated boxes when they were received by them along with the pet jars. He also submitted that the very same issue had come up before the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly denied. He also reiterates others observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 4. Since we have heard the matter at length even though the hearing was only for stay purposes and we find that the issue stands covered by several decisions of the Tribunal and also the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which according to the learned advocate for the appellant has been accepted by the department in respect of a sister concern, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeals for final decision. We find that the credit has been taken on the corrugated boxes by the appellant on the basis of an invoice issued by the manufacturer. It is not the case of the Revenue that corrugated boxes have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese boxes. No credit of duty paid on corrugated boxes is taken by the pet jar manufacturer. Invoices relating to corrugated boxes are received by the appellant through the manufacturer of pet jars along with the invoices on pet jars. Thereafter, the appellant takes credit on the basis of these invoices. Strictly speaking, as per the sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellants should have received these corrugated boxes and thereafter issued invoices in the name of pet jar manufacturer. On the basis of these invoices pet jar manufacturer could have taken credit of duty paid on corrugated boxes and thereafter supplied the pet jars packed in these boxes to the appellant. Net result would have been that instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
