Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Bhor Steel Grip Tapes Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex., Pune-Ii on 14 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(143)ELT372(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture insulation tapes which were packed in PVC cups. The cups were purchased from the market. The packing of the tapes was done by job worker situated outside the factory of the appellants. For sending the tapes to the job worker, the assessee had resorted to the provisions of Rule 57F(3) (as it then was). In the proforma, they had mentioned only the tapes as material going to the job worker and had not mentioned the packing material as required under Rule 57F(3). In the separate communication dated 12-9-94 also it was mentioned that the tapes were cleared on payment of duty for packing without mentioning that packing materials viz. cups were also being sent.
2. Show cause notice dated 10-5-96 sought to recover Modvat credit taken on the packing material on the ground that these were cleared as such without payment of duty. Before the Asstt. Commissioner, the plea made was that these goods were sent for packing and that the cost of packing was included for assessment of the tapes. He did not accept this contention, confirmed the duty and imposed the penalty. The Commissioner (A) upheld the position that no mention under Rule 57F(3) had been given indicating clearance of packing materials viz. cups. Me held that the clearance of cups would be covered under Rule 57F(3). Hence this appeal.
3. Shri Patel maintained that the cost of packing was included in the assessable value of the final goods, He showed Challan No. 881, dated 12-10-94 issued under Rule 52A which indicates that the goods cleared was sent for packing and that the assessable value of this goods included the packing charges also.
4. Shri Jain, Departmental Representative submits that the challan did not indicate that the value of the PVC cups stands included. He submits that the wording "packing material" would not indicate that the value of the plastic cups is included.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made. I have seen the intimation filed by the assessee. The intimations under Rule 57F(3) do not speak of any packing material including PVC cups. The challan under which the movements under the said Rule took place are not in evidence. The declaration that the value of the packing charges was included in the assessable value would not suffice to show that the value of the cups also stood included. On the basis of the documents as they appear on record and on perusal of the impugned order, it is not possible to accept the statement of the assessee that the documents included plastic cups also. In that case, the order of recovery of the duty is correctly made and has to be upheld. However, in the circumstances, the orders upholding the penalty do not survive. The penalty is remitted in full. The appeal is partly allowed.