Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Lotte India Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 September, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/759/07
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.137/2007 (P) dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Lotte India Corporation Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pondicherry
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 9.9.2009 Date of decision : 9.9.2009 Final Order No.____________ The issue for determination in this appeal is the admissibility of CENVAT credit on tattoos placed inside the packs of Bubble Gums weighing 400 gms. with the indication that one tattoo is given free for buying two pieces of Bubble Gum.
2. I find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessees own case reported in 2008 (224) ELT 102 wherein it has been held that a combination pack of coffee bite and butter scotch packed together and sold on payment of duty on MRP marked on the combipack is a manufactured product in terms of Section 2f (iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the assessee is eligible to credit. In both the cases, as in the earlier case, credit was denied on the ground that there was no manufacture involved in packing together coffee bite and butter scotch and the tattoo with the bubble gum. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sang Ltd. Vs CCE Pune, 2007 (209) ELT 196. However, as rightly pointed by ld.counsel for the appellants the period in dispute in that case was prior to 1.3.2003 when Section 2f (iii) was introduced This becomes clear from the fact that the order of the original authority in the Shri Warana Sahakari case is dated 14.12.2001.
3. Following the ratio of the decision in assessees own case cited supra, I set aside the impugned order denying credit, and allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 2