Promotional tattoos in product packs are not Cenvat inputs when they serve advertising rather than manufacture.

Boomer tattoos inserted in product containers were held not to qualify as inputs or packing material for Cenvat purposes because they were not used in or in relation to manufacture. The chewing gum and bubble gum were already wrapped in the relevant primary packing, and the tattoos were separately added as a promotional feature to attract consumers and advertise the product. On the recorded facts, they had no direct or indirect role in the manufacturing process and retained a separate market identity, so Cenvat credit was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether Boomer tattoos placed in the product container qualified as inputs or packing material used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product so as to entitle the assessee to Cenvat credit.

Analysis: Cenvat credit is available only in respect of inputs used in or in relation to manufacture. The tattoos were not part of the primary packing of the chewing gum or bubble gum, which was already wrapped in the relevant packing material. They were separately inserted as an additional feature to promote the product, attract consumers, and serve an advertising purpose. The findings of fact recorded below showed no direct or indirect use of the tattoos in the manufacturing process and treated them as a distinct promotional item with a separate identity in the market.

Conclusion: The tattoos were not inputs or packing material within the meaning of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the assessee was not entitled to Cenvat credit.

---