TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue was raised in the case of DTA unit where the empty packing material in which the input is received on which cenvat credit was availed, that whether clearances of such empty/used packing material is liable for excise duty or otherwise. In that case, the Board has issued a Circular No. 721/37/2003-CX dated 06.06.2003 wherein the Board has clarified that no duty shall be payable and no reversal of credit is also warranted on waste package/container used for packing input on which credit has been taken when cleared from the factory of the manufacture. He submits that on the same line in the case of EOU also, the used packing material would not attract excise duty on its clearances in DTA. He further submits that the dispute is related to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether the appellant being 100% EOU is liable to pay duty on Empty Drums of inputs imported under exemption Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 and 52/2003-CUS dated 31.03.2003. 2. Sh. Dhaval shah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per the condition of the notification, if the empty drums are durable and re-useable then only duty is required to be paid otherwise not. The plastic empty drums in which the inputs are imported, after use, the same is sold in the open market which are generally used for house hold purpose for storage of water at housing, therefore, the said drums are not repeatedly used which is the condition for levy of duty. He further submits that the issue involved is of interpreta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not appropriate, inasmuch as in those cases the clearance of MS Barrels/drums etc. was in respect of inputs received by a DTA unit and not in EOU unit. As such, the provisions of notification under which the inputs stand imported free of duty and provisions of Foreign Trade Policy was not the subject matter of the appeal. 6. As against the above, I find that in identical facts and circumstances the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Suretex Prophylactics (I) Limited - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 325 (Tri.-Bang.), has considered an identical issue and has observed as under :- "7. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The issue is quite simple. The respondents, a 100% EOU imported certain goods free of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved that no evidence stands placed by them on record showing that the barrels were not of repeated use. Before me also, apart from making a bald statement to that effect, nothing has been shown to substantiate the above plea. As such I find no merit and reject the same. 9. In view of the above, no merits found in the appeal and the same is accordingly, rejected. 5. In the case of Suretex Prophylactics (l) Ltd. in the identical issue that the empty barrel suitable for repeated use even though it different form packing material which are unsuitable for repeated use. It was held that the containers are suitable for repeated use and accordingly it is liable for payment of duty under Notification No. 53/1997-CUS. 6. In view of the abov....