TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provision of Rule 57G describing the inputs as also the final products. The specified, inputs were paper, paperboard, ink, toluene etc. to be utilised in the manufacture of shells which are used by the appellants captively in their cigarette factories for packing of cigarette. During the process of the manufacture as above, some sheets of paperboards get mechanically misprinted/defective. After the inputs have been utilised on the machines for printing, the printed sheets are sorted out within the factory in order to separate the misprinted/defective sheets from the sheets which have been printed correctly. The waste sheets are also sorted out at the factory. The balance misprinted/defective sheets are thereafter despatched to the job ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ells. The insertion of the interleaving trays amongst the shells packed in the CFCs prevents the shells from locking with each other. These interleaving trays were introduced in November, 1994 after receiving complaints that the shells were getting locked with each other during transportation. 4. The appellants were issued a show cause notice on 31-12-98 alleging irregular availment of Modvat credit on the declared inputs on the ground -that the same have been used in the manufacture of interleaving trays for, which no declaration under Rule 57G was made. As such Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. l,07,17, 7611.93 availed by the appellant during the period 19-11-94 to 30-9-98 was sought to be denied to the appellant and penalty propos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... UOI - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.), paras 7 and 8. (iii) Moti Laminates (P) Ltd. v. CCI - 1995 (76 ) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) (iv) CCE v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) para 5. (v) UOI v. Delhi Cloth Mills Co. Ltd. - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 315 (S.C.) - 1997 (20) RLT. 363(S.C.) (vi) CCE v. United Phosphorous Ltd. 2000 (117) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) - 2000 (38) RLT 239(S.C.). (vii) CCE v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 40(Tri) (viii) Porrits & Spencer Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.). 7. He submits that even the Commissioner could not give the heading or sub-heading of the interleaving trays under which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of the specified inputs is wholly untenable, invalid and bad. Being contrary to Rule 57B(1)(v) of the said rules. The said order is significantly completely silent on this provision of the said rules and the submissions made by the appellant, with the support of documentary evidence based on the said provision. For the above proposition he has referred to the Tribunals decision in the case of Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper)(P) Ltd. v. CCE Patna - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 366 (Tribunal). 9. Dr. Chakraborty. ld. Adv. has further argued that the Commissioner has completely failed to appreciate the true terms, scope and effect of the provisions of Rule 57D(2) of the said rules. On a correct and proper appreciation thereof no reasonable per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. The Commissioner has observed that the interleaving trays are excisable Items falling under Chapter 48 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. As per definition given in Section 2(d) of the act goods qualifying for being excisable goods, must be goods specified in the schedule. The Commissioner has held that as this trays are kind of packing material made of paper board, the same qualified for classification under heading/sub heading of Chapter 48 to the schedule. However, he has not disclosed as to under which heading or which sub-heading of Chapter 48 interleaving trays has been specified as excisable items. We also note that from the process of manufacture of the interleaving trays that the same come into existence out of ....