Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-

The brief facts, relevant for disposal of present appeal filed by the appellant-assessee M/s Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Jayco India Pvt. Ltd.) (for brevity "the assessee"), are that the assessee are engaged in the manufacture of chewing gum/bubble gum and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit, in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of bubble gum, including packing material. The revenue claimed that as the assessee has wrongly availed the Cenvat credit on "Boomer-tattoos", therefore, a show cause notice was issued, denying credit, in regard to "Boomer-tattoos", on the ground that these are not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product i.e. chewing gum/bubble gum.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and have gone through the record.

6. The main argument of learned counsel for the assessee that the manufacturer can avail the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs including the packing material and as "Boomer-tattoos" are used in packing material, in respect of bubble gum, therefore, it (assessee) is entitled to Cenvat credit, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. Admittedly, the assessee is availing the Cenvat credit in respect of packing material, in which bubble gums are wrapped, but the revenue has denied the same in respect of "Boomer-tattoo".

7. It is not a matter of dispute that chewing gum/bubble gums manufactured by the assessee are directly or primarily packed into the printed aluminum foils without "Tattoos". It means, putting a "Boomer-tattoo" in the package material of the bubble gum is an additional step in aid used for promotional material and is not termed as a packing material as such, especially when it is depicted on the packing that "free tattoo inside". The primary function of putting the "Tattoo" in the wrapped bubble gum is to promote the trade and to attract the children, rather than to be used for the purpose of packing "Tattoo".

8. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that these printed "Tattoos" are not used for initial packing in the real sense, rather they are wrapped on the bubble gum. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that the "Boomer-tattoo" is used as an initial packing material. Meaning thereby, the wrapper of the "Tattoo" on the bubble gum is not at all required in the form of primary packing. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that there is no direct or indirect use of the "Tattoo" in or in relation to the manufacture of the product, rather it is separately known as "Tattoo" in the market, has a separate identity, specific purpose of promotion of the product and for the purpose of advertisement. Hence, it is not a packing material and cannot be considered as inputs within the meaning and definition of 'input' as contemplated under the relevant Rule.