Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal from the revenue was argued by shri b.k. choubey. shri rohan shah appeared for the respondents.2. the assessees took modvat credit for input such as kraft paper duplex board, gum, stitching wire, printing ink etc. their final product was vacuum flasks and other insulated wares. the revenue held that rule 57a allowed credit to be taken on packaging material but not on materials for use in the packaging material. with this thought show cause notice was issued. the commissioner dropped the proceedings following the madras high court judgment in the case of ponds (india) ltd. v. collector of central excise 1993 (63) e.l.t. 3 and subsequent judgment of the tribunal. against this order is the present appeal from the revenue.3. in the grounds of appeal argued at length by shri b.k. choubey it has been stated that the madras high court judgment could not be challenged in time before the supreme court, being barred by limitation. even then it is claimed that the high court judgment was not accepted by the department. this ground does not merit any discussion at all.4. board's instruction dated 3-3-1988 and 13-2-1990 have also been cited to agitate against the ratio of the high court judgment. in the cited case of ashwin vanaspati inds. (pvt.) ltd. v. collector of central excise & customs, vadodara. 1994 (70) e.l.t. 754 (tribunal), the tribunal have referred to these very instructions of the board and have held that the interpretation made by the board being contrary to the law, the clarification was not binding on the courts and quasi-judicial authorities.5. reliance was also placed on other judgment of the tribunal reportedly giving a ratio in favour of the revenue. one of the cited cases is of kusum products 1990 (48) e.l.t. 50. he find that the madras high court has taken cognizance of these judgment and has not found favour therewith. the same is the case of the citation in the case of parle products (p) ltd. v. collector 1992 (57) e.l.t. 152 which was taken into account by the tribunal in the ashwin vanaspati inds. (pvt.) ltd. judgment.6. on certain other grounds an attempt has been made to distinguish the facts from those which were before the madras high court in those submission. we find nothing here to assist revenue.7. we find that the order of the commissioner was based on the law as laid down by the high court and by the tribunal. the order sustains.this appeal has no merit and is dismissed.

Judgment:
1. This appeal from the revenue was argued by Shri B.K. Choubey. Shri Rohan Shah appeared for the respondents.

2. The assessees took Modvat credit for input such as Kraft Paper Duplex Board, Gum, Stitching Wire, Printing Ink etc. Their final product was vacuum flasks and other insulated wares. The revenue held that Rule 57A allowed credit to be taken on packaging material but not on materials for use in the packaging material. With this thought show cause notice was issued. The Commissioner dropped the proceedings following the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of Ponds (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 and subsequent judgment of the Tribunal. Against this order is the present appeal from the Revenue.

3. In the grounds of appeal argued at length by Shri B.K. Choubey it has been stated that the Madras High Court judgment could not be challenged in time before the Supreme Court, being barred by limitation. Even then it is claimed that the High Court Judgment was not accepted by the department. This ground does not merit any discussion at all.

4. Board's instruction dated 3-3-1988 and 13-2-1990 have also been cited to agitate against the ratio of the High Court judgment. In the cited case of Ashwin Vanaspati Inds. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. 1994 (70) E.L.T. 754 (Tribunal), the Tribunal have referred to these very instructions of the Board and have held that the interpretation made by the Board being contrary to the law, the clarification was not binding on the Courts and quasi-judicial authorities.

5. Reliance was also placed on other judgment of the Tribunal reportedly giving a ratio in favour of the revenue. One of the cited cases is of Kusum Products 1990 (48) E.L.T. 50. He find that the Madras High Court has taken cognizance of these judgment and has not found favour therewith. The same is the case of the citation in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. Collector 1992 (57) E.L.T. 152 which was taken into account by the Tribunal in the Ashwin Vanaspati Inds. (Pvt.) Ltd. Judgment.

6. On certain other grounds an attempt has been made to distinguish the facts from those which were before the Madras High Court in those submission. We find nothing here to assist revenue.

7. We find that the order of the Commissioner was based on the law as laid down by the High Court and by the Tribunal. The order sustains.

This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.