ORDER
K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. The Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that plastic jars in which eclairs are being sold by the appellants and which are manufactured from the inputs on which Modvat credit was taken, the cost of such jars is not included in the assessable value of the eclairs and therefore, the Modvat credit on the input used in the manufacture of such jars is not allowable to the appellants.
2. Shri R.C. Gupta, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants pleaded that eclairs are covered by the Standards of Weights and Measures (Package Commodity) Rules, 1997 and therefore, the goods were being sold mentioning the mark retail price of the goods includes packing material for sale. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellants were not including the value of the jars. He also relied on the explanation given by the appellants vide their Fax dated August 2, 1999 to the Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Gwalior wherein it was clarified that though sale price of jar and bag is same in the wholesale market then assessable value of both will be the same. In case of jar, the profit margin to company is lower than that of the bag because the pricing of the product is determined not just on the cost but also on the market realities. He also referred to the Chartered Accountant’s certificate dated Feb. 24, 2000 (page 46 of the paper book) where it was certified that the cost of plastic moulded jar used for packing the eclairs is included in the price of the finished produced Cadbury Dairy Milk Eclair, He, therefore, pleaded that the denial of Modvat credit on the inputs used for the manufacture of jar is contrary to law. He also relied on the following decisions:-
(1) Delhi Bottling Company v. CCE, Chandigarh, 1999 (105) E.L.T. 42 (Tribunal).
(2) Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 432 (Tri.-Bang.).
He, therefore, pleaded that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and their appeal may be allowed.
3. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that Chartered Accountant’s certificate does not show the detail of the documents which were referred by him. He also referred to the statement of Shri Arvind Sharma wherein it is stated that they have absorbed the cost of jar in their margin. He, therefore, pleaded that jars were supplied free of cost to the customers and therefore, the credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of jars should not be allowed.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
5. I find that there is no definite evidence produced by the revenue that the value of the jar has not been included in the sale price of eclairs. On the contrary, the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant specifies that the cost of plastic jar is included in the price of the finished products eclair. The Chartered Accountant’s certificate is required to be accepted as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Delhi Bottling Company v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) that in the absence of any clear cut evidence produced by the Revenue contrary to the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant, the same has to be accepted. Therefore, it is accepted that price of the jar is being included in the price of eclair and the credit taken by the appellants on the inputs used in the manufacture of the jar is as per the provisions of law which cannot be denied to them. The reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of his order for denying the Modvat credit is very flimsy. I do not find any merits in the reasons given for denying the Modvat credit. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal.