9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants state Polycarbonate Sheets are used by them in the production shop floor on a mobile conveyer for collecting and accumulating the unwrapped chocolate coated wafer bars at the end of the moulding (bar forming) machine line. These are then further used for transporting & transferring these semi-finished (unwrapped) bars to the wrapping machine where the same are wrapped before being finally packed as fully finished goods. They are essential for the manufacture of their chocolates and are therefore used for producing or processing their manufactured product. Therefore Modvat Credit is admissible in respect of these goods as explained in para 4 of the Supreme Court Judgment reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). As against these sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various decisions cited. I observe that the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of "Plastic crates" has been denied to the assessee on the ground that the item does not figure in the items listed under Rule 57Q at the relevant time. The nature of the item and the use to which it is put by the assessee is not disputed by the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the item is in the form of material handing equipment which plays the role of carrying the intermediate semi finished products for the next manufacturing activity. The cops coming out as an out-put from the machinery cannot be held by any other way except to collect it through these plastic crates as otherwise, it will lose its form. The lower appellate authority has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 803 (T) the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the plastic crates used for transporting the bottles of aerated waters are eligible for Modvat credit. So the appellants' case is covered by the above laws". I observe that in the present case, Plastic crate is not one of the items specified under Rule 57Q as capital goods. What the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills (Supra) has held was that the goods specified under explanation 1© to Rule 57Q need not be used in the manufacture of final product for availing the benefit under Rule 57Q. In the present case the item Plastic crate is not one of the items specified under Rule 57Q as capital goods. Hence the said decision in my opinion does not help t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
