TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the interleaving trays made from misprinted and defective paper boards were excisable goods, requiring declaration as a final product for denying Modvat credit; (ii) Whether credit was admissible when the trays were used as packing material and their cost formed part of the assessable value of the final product.
Issue (i): Whether the interleaving trays made from misprinted and defective paper boards were excisable goods, requiring declaration as a final product for denying Modvat credit.
Analysis: Excisability depends on the goods being marketable and falling within the tariff schedule. The trays were made only from glued defective paper boards and were used internally as separators in packing. The record did not show any market for such trays, and the Revenue led no evidence of marketability. Mere specific dimensions did not establish excisability. In the absence of marketability, the trays could not be treated as an independent final product for the purpose of denying credit on the footing that they were undeclared goods.
Conclusion: The trays were not proved to be excisable goods or a separate final product, and this ground for disallowing Modvat credit failed.
Issue (ii): Whether credit was admissible when the trays were used as packing material and their cost formed part of the assessable value of the final product.
Analysis: Packing material used in relation to the final product is eligible for Modvat credit where its cost is included in the assessable value of the final product. The trays functioned as packing separators for the shells, and the appellant showed that their cost was included in the value on which duty was paid. On that footing, the input materials used in making the trays remained eligible inputs for credit. Rule 57D(2) also supported the treatment of such articles as intermediate products arising in the course of manufacture.
Conclusion: Credit was admissible on this basis, and the disallowance could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit and the personal penalty were unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the department fails to prove marketability, an internally used article cannot be treated as an excisable final product, and packing materials whose cost is included in the assessable value of the final product remain eligible for Modvat credit.
TaxTMI 
