Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Visteon Climate Systems India Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 18 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:18.11.2016
Excise Appeal No.2093/2011-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.167(DKV)CE/JPR-I/2011 dated 19.05.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-I]
For Approval and Signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s.Visteon Climate Systems India Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Vishwanatha Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri M.R. Sharma, AR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Final Order No.55734/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the cenvat credit on packing materials have been denied.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of auto parts and clearing the same on payment of duty under Section 4/4A of the Central Excise Act. As the appellant is clearing these auto parts to M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd., the duty is being paid under Section 4 of the Act and when these parts are packed in cartons then the appellant is required to affix MRP on the cartons and duty is being paid under Section 4 A of the Act. In stray cases, the appellant is affixing MRP on cartons but clearing the goods along with empty cartons altogether on payment of duty under Section 4 A of the Act. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant are clearing auto parts and cartons separately. Therefore, cartons/packing materials have been cleared as such. In that circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit on the packing materials as they are required to reverse the same.
3. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant. Cenvat credit on packing materials was denied. Consequently, duty was demanded along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before me.
4. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant is clearing goods along with packing materials affixing MRP thereon and paying duty under Section 4 A of the Act, therefore, they are entitled to take cenvat credit on the packing materials.
5. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that as the packing materials have been cleared separately, therefore, they are required to reverse the cenvat credit on the packing materials.
6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions
7. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant is clearing packing materials as such, which is not factually correct. As the appellant is affixing MRP on packing materials, therefore, it cannot be said that the packing materials have been cleared as such. Further, the facts are not in dispute that the appellant is clearing auto parts and cartons altogether on payment of duty under Section 4 A of the Act. In that circumstances, when these packing materials have been used by the appellant by affixing MRP thereon, cenvat credit cannot be denied and it cannot be alleged that the packing materials have been cleared as such. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on packing materials.
8. With these observations, the impugned order deserves no merit, hence set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
[Order dictated in the open court] ( Ashok Jindal ) Member (Judicial) Ckp.
1