ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants on the empty bottles and crown corks.
2. The credit has been sought to be denied to the appellants on the above said items on the ground that these are durable and returnable to the appellants by their dealers to whom supply aerated water after filling in those bottles and that appellants are also charging container hire charges from the dealers. But in my view, none of these grounds is legally sustainable for denying the credit to the appellants. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated after under the brand name of Pepsi being the franchise holder. The empty bottles are used by them for filling that water and crown corks are used on those bottles. The value of both these items is included by them in the assessable value of the final product and duty is accordingly discharged by them. There is nothing on record to suggest that they even under valued the final product, by not declaring the correct value of the empty bottles and crown corks. Their price list had always been accepted by the competent authority without objection.
3. When the appellants had added the price of the empty glass bottles and the crown corks in the assessable value of the final product, they are entitled to claim the Modvat credit. The fact that the bottles are returned to them by their dealers and are of durable nature, is of not much consequence and did not create any legal impediment, for allowing the Modvat credit to the appellants. The crown corks are never returned by dealers to the appellants, as these are thrown away by the consumers at the time of opening of the bottles, for drinking of the aerated water. Similarly, charging of container hire charges by the appellants from the dealers no account of retention of the bottles for certain period, could not be a legal ground for disallowing the Modvat credit. The case of the appellants stands in fact fully covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Tribunal in an identical case CCE, Jalandhar v. Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Ltd. Final Order No. 129/05-B dt. 14.1.2005 : 2005 (120) ECR 434 (T) wherein under similar circumstances the credit on the empty bottles had been allowed to the assessee.
4. In the light of the discussions made above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief as per law.
Order dictated in the open Court.