Appellate Tribunal allows CENVAT Credit on batteries supplied free with film rolls

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in two appeals challenging the denial of CENVAT Credit on excise duty paid on batteries supplied free of cost with film rolls. The Tribunal held that the appellant's activity of re-packing and re-labelling the final product, film rolls with batteries, constituted a manufacturing process under Tariff Heading No. 3702. Citing relevant rules and precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, concluding that no substantial question of law arose, and set aside the impugned order, granting the appellant the right to claim CENVAT Credit on the provided batteries.

---

---

Issues involved:
Denial of CENVAT Credit on excise duty paid on batteries supplied free of cost along with film roll.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD pertains to two appeals challenging Order-in-Appeal No.SA/130/VAPI/2011 and No.SA/131/VAPI/2011. The central issue in this case revolves around the denial of CENVAT Credit on excise duty paid on batteries provided free of cost with film rolls. The lower authorities contended that the appellant was ineligible for the credit as batteries did not qualify as inputs under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the manufacture of the final product. However, upon examination, it was observed that the appellant engaged in re-packing and re-labelling the final product, film rolls, along with batteries, which was considered a manufacturing activity under the Tariff Heading No. 3702. This activity was not disputed and was akin to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Prime Health Care Products 2011 (272) ELT 54 (Guj.).

The judgment delves into the interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, specifically Rule 3(1), which allows manufacturers or producers to claim credit on specified items. It was noted that the definition of "input" under Rule 2(k) encompassed accessories of final products cleared along with the final product. The Tribunal justified that the credit was admissible for the respondent-assessee based on the excise duty paid on the toothbrush, which was packed with toothpaste without any additional charge to the consumer. This aligns with the provisions of Rule 3 and Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which defines "manufacture" to include processes like packing or re-packing in a unit container. The packing and re-packing of inputs, such as toothbrush and toothpaste, were deemed to fall within the ambit of manufacture, enabling the assessee to claim CENVAT Credit on such inputs.

Given the clear alignment of the case with the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court and the interpretation of relevant rules and definitions, the Tribunal concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework, definitions, and precedents to support the decision to grant CENVAT Credit in the case under consideration.

---