9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2201.20 and 2202.20 of CETA, 1985. The appellant was issued with a Show Cause Cum Demand notice on 31.03.2005, inter alia, alleging that they have availed CENVAT Credit wrongly on PVC crates as input to the tune of Rs.76,21,389/-(Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Nine only) during the period from April 2000 to October, 2004. The said demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority who imposed equivalent penalty under Rule 13/15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002/2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri G.P.Singh, CEO of the Appellant submitted that the duty paid PVC crates are purchased by them and the same are used in or in relation to the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has further submitted that the ld.Commissioner has disallowed the CENVAT credit only on the ground that they have accepted deposits @ Rs.250/- and 190/- per crate from their customers for transporting the finished goods from the factory premises to their customers. He has submitted that though they accept deposits from their customers, but no interest on the deposits are received against such deposits as observed in the Order. Further, he has submitted that the collection of deposits on the crates should not be a ground to disallow the CENVAT Credit of duty paid on such crates which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and the amortized cost is included in the value of finished goods. In support of his conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of manufacture wherein PVC crates are used had been submitted to the department along with the declarations under erstwhile Rule 173B and 57G of Central Excise Rules on 31.03.2000 and hence the demand is barred by limitation. 4. Per contra the ld.A.R.(Asstt.Commr.) for Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. He has submitted that as the appellants are collecting security deposits against use of crates hence it cannot be said that the same are used in or in relation to manufacture of final products and accordingly be termed as inputs . Hence the adjudicating authority has rightly disallowed the CENVAT Credit on the PVC crates. He has submitted that the appellant had been collecting deposits from the customers o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Diamond Beverages Ltd. v. CCE, Cal-I 1998 (103) ELT 340 (Tri.). Similar view was also expressed in the case of Delhi Bottling Co. vs. CCE, Chandigarh 1995 (105) ELT 42 and also in the case of Parle Bevarages Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai 2000 (124) ELT 803 (Tri.). We find that even though the judgements were delivered under Rule 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1994 of the Central Excise Rules, where the condition was that the value of the packing materials ought to be included in the assessable value of the finished goods and such condition is no more relevant in the definition of input under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, but the CENVAT Credit would be held as admissible as the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Banco Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
