TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed the demand of duty. Held that- In other words, the raw material was used in the trial run of the plant. It is settled law that raw materials used in the trial production of the final product are inputs for purpose of Modvat/Cenvat credit. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal allowed. - E/1228/2003 - A/664/2009-WZB/C–IV/SMB - Dated:- 6-11-2009 - Shri P. G. Chacko, Member (J) Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal by M/s. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. is against denial of Modvat credit of Rs.5,19,865/- for the period November, December, 1996 and equal amount of penalty. The appellant-company was engaged, at the material ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the commencement of actual production and before obtaining Central Excise registration. I also noted that the Central Excise registration had been obtained on 8-1-1997. The present appeal is against the Commissioner's order. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they had obtained Central Excise registration as early as on 11-10-1996. In this connection, the counsel refers to the registration certificate available at page 10 of the paper book. With reference to this document, learned SDR points out that the registration was granted to M/s. Tetra Pak Converting (India) Ltd. and not to M/s. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. In this context, the counsel submits that the erstwhile company, Tetra Pak Converting (India) Ltd., was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Collector -1996 (88) E.L.T. 704 (Tribunal). In the latter case, raw Naphtha used in the trial run of a fertilizer manufacturing plant was held to be eligible for concessional rate of duty under an exemption Notification, while, in the former, it was held that inputs used in trial production of final product were used in or in relation to the manufacturer of the final product. 4. I have heard the learned SDR also in this connection. 5. In the instant case, it appears from the show-cause notice that the credit in question was taken during January to March, 1997. It is the claim of the appellant that they started commercial production in January, 1997. Thus it appears, the credit was taken during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
