9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bottles sold were unused bottles and in our view, the criteria prescribed under Rule 57F(1) is satisfied i.e. the inputs have been used in the manufacture of final products. Since the bottles have been used in the manufacture of final products, we do not find any reason to demand the cenvat credit availed on such glass bottles. In the result, the demand is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL No. E/1323/05-Mum - - - Dated:- 17-8-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) And Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate : For the Petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar, Joint Commissioner (AR) : For the Respondent ORDER Per: P.K. Jain Brief facts of the case are that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that glass bottles are used as a packaging material for aerated waters and these bottles go to the market and come back and are reused. However, many a times the bottles are broken either in the market or during the manufacturing or remanufacturing process. Further, after certain time, the printing on the bottle becomes faint and the bottles also are scratched and such bottles are withdrawn by them from the market and sold as used or scrap bottles to traders. The main submission was that the inputs were not sold as it was received in the factory but were used number of times and due to frequent use they became redundant for reuse and were therefore sold. It was also submitted that when the used bottles used to return from the market, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crompton Greaves Ltd. reported in 2004 (174) ELT 231 (Tri.-Mum.); (iii) Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2002 (144) ELT 647 (Tri.-Bang.); (iv) Harsh International (Khaini) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2012 (281) ELT 714 (Del.); (v) Madura Coats Ltd. vs. CCE, Tirunelveli reported in 2005 (190) ELT 450 (Tri.-Bang.); (vi) Cummins India Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III reported in 2007 (219) ELT 911 (Tri.-Mum.); (vii) Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad reported in 2003 (161) ELT 346 (Tri.-Del.); (viii) Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. vs. CCE, Nasik reported in 2004 (178) ELT 998 (Tri.-Mum.); 3. Learned AR, on the other hand, took us through the original order and submitted that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
