9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lve common issue pertaining to CENVAT credit and hence taken up together for disposal by this common order. Periodical Show Cause Notices were issued for denying CENVAT credit starting from December 2005 to March 2010, which were adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner, Bangalore, confirming demand of Central Excise duty consequent to disallowance of CENVAT credit, together with imposition of interest and penalty which is under challenge in these appeals. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of camera (re-loadable) under contract manufacturing agreement entered with M/s Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. ('Kodak') The said goods are classifiable under Central Excise Tariff heading 9006 51 00 on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the appellant submitted that the value of film-roll is very well included in the value of manufactured goods cleared by them in combo-pack to Kodak. He also submitted that the camera is specified in the Third Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act and is a deemed manufacture, which includes any process, in relation to goods specified in the Third Schedule to the Act, involving packing or repacking of goods in a unit container or labelling or relabeling including declaration or alteration of MRP or any process to render the product marketable. He accordingly submitted that the activity of packing of camera with the film roll in a bundle / combi-pack would tantamount to manufacture. He also submitted that film-roll would qualify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue pertaining to available of credit, in the hands of camera manufacturer, on film rolls has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Kodak India Ltd (Supra), under the erstwhile provisions contained in Central Excise Rules, wherein it has been held that film rolls cleared with camera will constitute 'accessories' to the camera and eligible for credit. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below:- "....A perusal of this rule indicates, the most important change brought about by this rule is to allow credit on specified items by bringing them in the ambit of inputs, such as goods manufactured for captive consumption, paints, goods used for generation of electricity, accessories, packing materials, by listing them in an una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore no legal impediment in considering more than one film roll, as in this case, to be covered under Rule 57B(I)VI as a permissible inputs...." 10. We have perused the finding made by the learned Commissioner in para 49 of the impugned order, wherein he has sought to distinguish the ratio of the above Tribunal decision in the case of Kodak India Ltd (Supra) on the ground that the only condition for allowing the credit under the erstwhile Rule 57B was inclusion of their cost in the assessable value of the final product. We are of the view that the Ld. Commissioner erred in not appreciating that the film-rolls were very much considered as 'accessories' to a camera and once the same is considered as 'accessories', it qualifies as 'input' as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
