Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S Katwa Udyog Ltd., Belgaum vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 September, 2001
ORDER
Shri G.A. Brahma Deva
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal dated 12.3.98., passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. The point to be considered in the instant case is whether modvat credit is admissible on HDPE bags use din packing the cement. The Asst. Commissioner has disallowed the modvat credit availed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 16,875/- on the ground that the appellant availed modvat credit on HDPE bags used in packing the cement which were not inputs for availment of modvat credit prior to 15.3.95 under rule 57A.
3. Sh. Savant, appearing for the appellant submitted that HDPE based used in packing cement should be considered as an input in relation to the manufacture of cement. Precisely, this was the view of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar reported in 1994 (24) ETR 349 wherein it was held that "there is no scope for further interpretation of this issue and as such no question of law regarding availability of modvat benefit to HDPE bags used for packing of cement, arises for reference". In other words, it was held that in terms of the Explanation to rule 57-A, "inputs" includes packings materials. Sh. Sawant, also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. East End Paper Industries Ltd. reported in 1989 (43) ELT 201 wherein it was held that wrapping paper being raw material and component part of wrapped paper entitled to exemption under notification no. 18A/83 CE.
4. On the other hand Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for revenue submitted that the case law referred to by the appellant's counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case and in the case of Shri Cement Ltd, the reference application is rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no question of law arises. Further more the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the amended provision to rule 57A for the period in question since the relevant law was inserted on 17.9.90 and was in force upto 15.3.95. She drew my attention to the relevant finding portion of the Commissioner wherein it was observed that the Rule 57A(vi) "bags or sacks made out of fabrics (whether or not coated, covered or laminated with any other materials) woven from strips or tapes of plastice" were clearly excluded from the scope of inputs for the purpose of modvat credit. Subsequently this was deleted by Notification no. 11/95 (NT) dtd 16.3.95. The HDPE bags was specified as an input eligible for modvat credit only with effect from 16.3.95. In the instant case, the HDPE bags have been received in April 94 to September 94 and hence rightly ineligible for modvat credit as inputs.
5. On considering the submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration that the amended provision was in force during the period in question, I find some force in the argument advanced on behalf of the revenue that HDPE bags were not an input at the relevant point of time. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)