TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 confirms Tinplates qualify for Modvat Credit as packaging materials under Rule 57A</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus RASOI LIMITED</h3> COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus RASOI LIMITED - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal) Issues:Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules regarding Modvat Credit on packaging materials and raw materials, eligibility of Tinplates as inputs for Modvat Credit, distinction between packaging materials and ready-to-use containers, and the legality of the Tribunal's interpretation.Analysis:The Collector of Central Excise filed a Reference Application challenging an order allowing Modvat benefit to M/s. Rasoi Ltd. for duty paid on Tinplates used in manufacturing Tins for packing vegetable products. The lower authorities viewed Tinplates as inputs only for exempt Tins, not eligible for Modvat Credit on the final product. The Tribunal ruled that Tinplates were eligible inputs as packaging materials under Rule 57A, rejecting Rasoi's claim that Tins were intermediate products. The Reference Application raised questions on Modvat Credit availability for raw materials of packaging materials, Tinplates' eligibility, and the Tribunal's interpretation legality.The Department argued that Tinplates were raw materials for Tins, not packaging materials, and thus not eligible for Modvat Credit on the final product. They contended that Tinplates lost identity in Tins and were not used in relation to the vegetable product. They sought a High Court reference, challenging the Tribunal's interpretation. In contrast, Respondents' Counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision correctly interpreted packaging materials to include raw materials, consistent with the Rule's wording and scope.The Tribunal examined the Rule's scope, distinguishing packaging materials from packages. They upheld their decision that Tinplates qualified as packaging materials for making Tins, citing Import Trade Control Policy treating Tinplates as packing material. Referring to a similar case, they aligned their decision with Supreme Court precedent on packaging materials as component parts of the final product, supporting Tinplates' eligibility for Modvat Credit.Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Reference Application, finding their decision in line with Modvat provisions and Supreme Court principles on raw materials as component parts. They concluded that Tinplates were eligible for Modvat Credit as packaging materials, not requiring a High Court reference. The Tribunal's interpretation stood, upholding Tinplates' eligibility and the distinction between packaging materials and ready-to-use containers.
TaxTMI 