Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the limited issue in this appeal is whether thermocol sheets packing used for transportation of scooters are eligible input in terms of rule 57a or not. the collector (appeals) in the impugned order held it to be a input following the ratio of the cegat judgment in the case of jayshree timber products v. collector of central excise 1992 (62) e.l.t. 235. in the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the scooter is not packed in the sheets. if it is to qualify for the term "packaging material" it must be made into a package. therefore in the present case the sheets do not qualify as inputs. citation is made of the madras high court judgment in the case of ponds (india) ltd. v. collector of central excise 2. i have heard shri b.k. suman, the ld. jdr and shri l.b. attar, ld.advocate for the assessees.3. in the jayshree timber products case, iron hoops were used to secure the plywood on wooden pallets. in allowing hoops as inputs under rule 57a, the tribunal observed that the term packaging material need not connote only the complete or ready to use container or package. the material used for packaging would also constitute packaging material.the cited judgment of the high court is in a different context and is more liberal than the jayshree timber products judgment. in this case the high court held that plastic granules which were used for making containers which in turn were used for packaging final goods namely cosmetics, would qualify as input under rule 57a. the ratio of the judgment does not take away the ratio of jayshree timber products. the facts being identical, the collector was correct in applying the ratio of the judgment. the impugned order is upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Judgment:
1. The limited issue in this appeal is whether Thermocol sheets packing used for transportation of scooters are eligible input in terms of Rule 57A or not. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order held it to be a input following the ratio of the CEGAT Judgment in the case of Jayshree Timber Products v. Collector of Central Excise 1992 (62) E.L.T. 235. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the scooter is not packed in the sheets. If it is to qualify for the term "packaging material" it must be made into a package. Therefore in the present case the sheets do not qualify as inputs. Citation is made of the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of Ponds (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 2. I have heard Shri B.K. Suman, the ld. JDR and Shri L.B. Attar, ld.Advocate for the assessees.

3. In the Jayshree Timber Products case, Iron Hoops were used to secure the plywood on wooden pallets. In allowing hoops as inputs under Rule 57A, the Tribunal observed that the term packaging material need not connote only the complete or ready to use container or package. The material used for packaging would also constitute packaging material.

The cited judgment of the High Court is in a different context and is more liberal than the Jayshree Timber Products Judgment. In this case the High Court held that plastic granules which were used for making containers which in turn were used for packaging final goods namely cosmetics, would qualify as input under Rule 57A. The ratio of the Judgment does not take away the ratio of Jayshree Timber Products. The facts being identical, the Collector was correct in applying the ratio of the judgment. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal dismissed.