TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies MODVAT Credit for Kraft paper in printed cartons, stresses direct link to final product</h1> The Tribunal ruled against the eligibility of MODVAT Credit for Kraft paper used for printed cartons, finding it not directly linked to the manufacture of ... MODVAT Credit Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the removal of inputs for the manufacture of intermediate products.2. Eligibility of MODVAT Credit on duty paid Kraft paper used for printed cartons and subsequently for packing finished products.3. Determination of whether printed cartons are intermediate products for the manufacture of Chocolate.4. Application of Rule 57E(2) in relation to MODVAT Credit on input materials.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which permits the removal of inputs for the manufacture of intermediate products necessary for final products. The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, contested the order of the Collector (Appeals), Madras, arguing that the Kraft paper used for printed cartons did not qualify as an input for the final product, Chocolate, and thus, MODVAT Credit should not be allowed.2. The Collector contended that the Kraft paper was not directly used as packing material but was converted into printed cartons, which were then utilized for packing the finished products. The Collector argued that unless duty was paid on the printed cartons, MODVAT Credit should not be availed. The Collector emphasized that the Kraft paper did not enter the manufacturer's premises in a ready-to-use condition and underwent further processing before being used for packing.3. The Department's representative reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing that the printed cartons could not be considered intermediate products for the manufacture of Chocolate. Referring to Rule 57E(2), it was argued that MODVAT Credit could not be granted for Kraft paper if the printed cartons were not deemed intermediate products. The Department highlighted the necessity of proving the relationship between the input material and the final product to claim MODVAT Credit.4. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Pond's (India) Limited v. Collector of Central Excise and Kusum Products v. CCE, to establish the criteria for determining intermediate products eligible for MODVAT Credit. The Tribunal held that the Kraft paper used for printed cartons did not qualify as an input for the manufacture of Chocolate but only for the printed cartons. Following the precedent set by earlier cases, the Tribunal allowed the plea of the Revenue, ruling against the eligibility of MODVAT Credit for the Kraft paper.In conclusion, the judgment delved into the nuanced interpretation of Central Excise Rules, particularly Rule 57F(2), to determine the eligibility of MODVAT Credit for input materials used in the manufacturing process. The decision emphasized the importance of establishing a direct connection between the input material and the final product to claim such credits, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue's plea in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
