TaxTMI 
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 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 worker, in the instant case, M/s. Imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 proposed to be imposed upon them. After adjudication the Commissioner vide his impugned order disallo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rises - 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 the same would be classified but has merely indicated that the same are classifiable under Chapter 48. In the case of CCE v. Amol Decolite Ltd. - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 222 it has been held by the Tribunal that as per definition in Section 2(d) of the Act, excisable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upport 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 person could come to the conclusion that ILTs could not be said to be intermediate products within the meaning of the Rule 57D(2) of the said rules. The Commissioner failed to appreciate that it is now well settled that containers/packages which are manufactured capti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 misprinted defective paperboards and by gluing printed portions together. The same are used for separating one row, shells from the other, this is an innovative idea adopted by the appellants themselves and at best can be called utilisation of the waste material. The appella....