TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri B.L. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - M/s. Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd., (PSL) Erode, was ordered to pay back Rs. 39,197/- availed by them as 50% of the duty paid on plastic crates received between 7/2000 to 10/2003. PSL are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and man made yarn. The impugned plastic crates are used within the mill to transfer the yarn from one section to another section in the process of completing the manufacture of final products cleared by it. The appellants rely on a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Calicut v. Keltron Component Complex Ltd. reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 580 (Tri.-Bang.) in support of their claim that plastic crates are, capital goods and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER). 3. The ld. SDR relies on a decision of a Hon'ble Single Member of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. PKPN Spinning Mills (P) Ltd reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.-Chen.), wherein it was held that 'plastic crates' used as material handling equipment could not be treated as input nor the same were capital goods. The ld. SDR prays that the impugned order may be sustained and the appeal filed by PSL be dismissed. In his rejoinder, the Counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal relied on by the SDR has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide their judgment dated 3-1-06 in CMA 4162/ 2005. 4. I have carefully considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as outputs of different machines are collected in plastic crates for taking the intermediate product from one state of manufacture to the next stage of manufacture. In the absence of container like plastic crates in the instant case, manufacture of the final product cotton yarn and man made yarn will be highly inconvenient. 'Plastic crates' have therefore, to be held as accessories to the textile machinery employed in the factory of the appellant in the manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the impugned goods satisfy the definition of Rule 2(b) of CCR. I therefore, find the impugned order not in accordance with law and vacate the same and allow the appeal filed by PSL. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
