Parle Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal is against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals), central excise, new delhi dated 20-2-1996, by which modvat credit on 'printing ink' and 'media' was denied to the appellants. a penalty of rs. 10,000/- imposed by the asstt.commissioner in order-in-original was also confirmed by the commissioner (appeals).2. ld. counsel for the appellants, shri harbans singh submits that the issue is fully covered in the appellant's favour by a series of decisions of this tribunal. he cites the following decisions inter alia in support of his contention that 'printing ink, and m.g. poster paper' used in the manufacture of 'printing waxed paper' are entitled for modvat credit under rule 57a :- (a) brooke bond lipton (india) ltd. v.c.c.e. reported in 1996 (84) e.l.t. 293.....

Judgment:
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi dated 20-2-1996, by which Modvat credit on 'Printing Ink' and 'Media' was denied to the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Asstt.

Commissioner in Order-in-Original was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri Harbans Singh submits that the issue is fully covered in the appellant's favour by a series of decisions of this Tribunal. He cites the following decisions inter alia in support of his contention that 'Printing Ink, and M.G. Poster Paper' used in the manufacture of 'Printing Waxed Paper' are entitled for Modvat credit under Rule 57A :- (a) Brooke Bond Lipton (India) Ltd. v.C.C.E. reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 293 (Tribunal), wherein printing ink utilised for printing 'brand name and manufacturer's name' on paper bags to identify package tea was held to be eligible for Modvat credit, (b) C.C.E., Pune v. Sathe Biscuits & Chocolate Co. Ltd. 1999 (113) E.L.T. 178 (Tribunal), in which the Tribunal had held, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Ponds (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 (Madras H.C.), that inputs used in another input such as packing material by way of M.G. Poster paper and printing ink used in the manufacture of printing waxed paper would be entitled for Modvat credit. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the appellants who were manufacturers of biscuits were using T.D.L. Poster paper, O.L.B. paper (Glassine), Printing Inks, Poly Granules, H.R. Medias, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Co-polymer, Ethyle Acetate, Butyl Acetate, Parrafin Wax' for use in the printing of the packing material for the biscuits. He explained the process invcived as under: "First of all printing was carried out on the required wrapper on T.D.L. Poster Paper by using printing inks, Ethyle Acetate, Butyl Acetate and H.R. Medias.

Ethyle Acetate, Butyl Acetate and H.R. Medias are the medium to dilute the printing inks. After printing the printed paper is laminated with O.L.B. paper with the help of Molten Wax solution in which Paraffin Wax, Ethylene vinyl Acetate Co-Polymer and Poly Granules are used. For the purpose of lamination both T.D.L. paper (duly printed) and O.L.B.paper are passed through Molten Wax and thereafter the same are cooled.

The laminated paper is then slit into small rolls as per the requirement". Ld. Counsel also submits that under Section 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and under Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, it was obligatory for the appellants to put a label on each packet giving trade name, description of goods, name of ingredients used in the product, their composition, weight, volume etc. The appellant could not have sold their biscuits without complying with the provisions of the said enactments. Ld.

Counsel therefore submits that the matter being fully covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and in the facts of the case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal and for setting aside the impugned order.

3. Ld. JDR, Shri Y.R. Kilaniya invites my attention to the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A/779-780/94-NRB, dated 24-8-1994 1994 (74) E.L.T. 603 (Tribunal) involving the present appellants wherein the very same issue had been considered and the Tribunal had held that Modvat credit will not be available in case of materials like 'Printing Ink'. He submits that though a reference has been made to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the same issue, the Final Order Nos. A. 779-780/94-NRB 1994 (74) E.L.T. 603" (Tribunal) still held the field and the issue is fully covered by the said Final Order in favour of Revenue.

4. Ld. Counsel in rejoinder submits that the Final Order referred to by the ld. JDR had not taken note of the ratio of the Madras High Court judgment in Ponds (India) Ltd. (supra). There have also been subsequent decisions of the Tribunal viz., Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (supra) and Sathe Biscuits & Chocolates Co. Ltd. (supra) which have been referred to in the appellant's appeal and they have subsequently taken a different view and inputs used in another input like packing material have been considered eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and have also perused the case law. I find that the case law relied on by the ld.Counsel for the appellants cover the items in dispute. I find that the Tribunal has in Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (supra) held that printing ink utilised for printing brand name, manufacturer's name etc.

on paper bags to identify the contents of the packet are eligible for credit. Likewise, the Tribunal decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Sathe Biscuits & Chocolate Co. Ltd. referred to above also had considered eligibility for Modvat credit in respect of M.G.Poster Paper and printing ink which were used in the manufacture of printing waxed paper. In the said decision also, the Tribunal had taken the view that poster paper, printing ink etc. would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.7. Following the ratio of the above two decisions, I hold that the items presently under dispute viz., printing ink, Poly Granules, H.R.Medias, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Co-polymer, Ethyle Acetate, Butyl Acetate, and Paraffin Wax will be eligible for Modvat credit as inputs.

8. Appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside in the above terms.