9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is against the order of the Collector dated 31-5-1994. The issue involved is whether plastic crates used for transportation of aerated waters are eligible inputs within the parameters of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not. 2. The assessees were represented by Shri Dalip Singh, Consultant. The Revenue was represented by Shri Y.R. Kilayania, JDR. 3. Shri Dalip Singh a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1995 and had no bearing on the facts of the case where the order was passed in 1993. He claimed that crates could not be called the inputs in the manufacture of aerated waters. They were meant only for carriage of finished articles. He further claimed that the value of the crates was high when compared with the value of the finished articles. Modvat if made permissible on crates would result in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e various citations made by the Ld. Counsel in so far as they define packaging material seem to go against his case. In the judgment in regard to Ponds India Ltd. Madras High Court, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.), the Madras High Court has distinguished between the packaging material on one hand and packages or containers on the other. In the judgment, the judgment of the Tribunal in case of F.D.C. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that a specific exclu- sion was made for crates and glass bottles only vide the notification dated 17-11-1995 and therefore its inclusion during the period prior to this inclusion would be (sic) We observe that crates did not ever qualify as inputs within the definition given under Rule 57A. This argument, therefore, is available to the assessee. 12. The issue of the admissibility as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
