TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire movement of the cement upto loading into the truck and wagons is automatic, which also results in damage of the cement bags in the process. The issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of MADRAS CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY [ 2010 (7) TMI 398 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] where it was held that In the absence of any legal requirement to reverse credit, appellants cannot be asked to reverse the credit taken on the inputs which they have put to use for the intended purpose but which have become torn and non-useable in the course of manufacture/use as packing material. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Miscellaneous Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each. For the purpose of packing of cement in standard packages of 50 kg. each, the appellant has purchased HDPE/PP Bags on payment of duty from the manufacturers of packing bags. It is submitted that the proper records are being maintained with regard to the opening balance, receipt, issue of packing bags for packing, consumption of bags for packing, bursting occurred during the process of packing and the closing balance on daily basis in the erstwhile prescribed format RG-9 (Packing Bags Records). A show-cause notice dated 30th May, 2016 was issued during the period May, 2011 to December, 2015, alleging wrong availment and utilization of cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 6,40,926/- on bursted HDPE Bags destroyed in the course of packing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for such damage is also high temperature of cement when packed, pressure of the compressed air, mechanical operating faults, disrupted electrical supply etc.. The Ld.C.A. further submits that the burst/torn are duly accounted for in the RG-9 Register maintained by the appellant. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy reported in 2010 (259) ELT 137 (Tri.-Chennai). 5. The Ld.D.R. appearing on behalf of Revenue, justified the impugned order and submitted that the cenvat credit has rightly been denied and there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. He further states that only when inputs are cleared as such, there is a requirement for reversal of the credit under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but there is no such provision in respect of inputs which have become waste and scrap in the course of manufacture or use as packing materials. He further states that in the appellant s own case, a similar issue has been decided in favour of the appellants vide Final Order No. 691/10 dated 22-6-2010 in Appeal No. E/583/2009. 3. Heard the learned SDR Shri Niranjan Babu. He supports the impugned order and states that there is a requirement for reversal of credit in respect of such bags cleared by the appellants in terms of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
