Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commr. Of C. Ex. vs Tungabhadra Ind. Ltd. on 5 May, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(117)ELT792(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad, rejecting the reference filed by the Collector before him in respect of availability of Modvat credit in respect of electrolytic tin sheets falling under Chapter Heading 7212.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as inputs for manufacture of vegetable product falling under Heading 1504.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Act.
2. The cross-appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) while rejecting the departmental appeal before him. The Collector (Appeals) noted that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.). The Hon'ble High Court has held that containers are treatable as component parts of the final products, input credit for plastic granules used for making the said containers is admissible. The High Court has ruled that plastic containers being essential for marketing the final product, containers are treatable as intermediate goods, input credit for duty paid on plastic granules, is therefore admissible even if containers made therefrom were exempted from duty so long as final product is exempt. The Collector (Appeals) has held that the ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the present case.
3. As against the grant of benefit of Modvat credit and rejection of the appeal, the Revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has not distinguished the law laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd. (supra).
4. We have heard Shri S. Kannan, learned DR for the Revenue and Shri Muthu Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the Respondents (assessee). The learned Counsel submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Aswin Vanaspati Inds. Pvt. Ltd v. C.C.E. as reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 754. He submits that there is no fresh ground made out by the Revenue.
5. On consideration of the submissions made we notice that grant of Modvat credit by the Order-in-Original and rejection of the appeal filed by the department, by the Collector (Appeals) is totally justified as the issue is now covered by the judgments noted above. In this view of the matter, the appeal is rejected.