ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. Modvat credit on duplex board which is sent to job worker for manufacturing the printed cartons which in turn are used for packing torches and miniature bulbs has been denied on the ground that duplex board is used in the manufacture of printed cartons which is a separate finished product and is also exempted from duty.
2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that credit on such packaging material is admissible and in fact, refers to decision of Tribunal in their own case reported in 1985 (76) E.L.T. 399. He also relies on the direct judgment of Madras High Court in case of Ponds (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise – 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.).
3. Ld. DR reiterates department’s arguments and submits that such packing material would not be entitled to credit.
4. Considered. In the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad – 1995 (76) E.L.T. 399 – the Tribunal on the identical issue held that duplex board used for producing cartons for packing torches would be eligible to Modvat. The Tribunal held that process of packing being incidental or ancillary to completion of manufactured product gets covered in manufacturing process and is eligible for Modvat credit de hors the question whether it is a packaging material or not. The ld. Collector refers to this decision, but submits that they have filed a reference application before the Tribunal to refer this case to the Hon’ble High Court. The ld. Advocate draws attention to Tribunal’s Order Ref. 35/95-NB, dated 17-8-1995 : [1995 (80) E.L.T. 139 (Tribunal)] under which reference application filed by Revenue has been dismissed. In case of Ponds (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Hon‘ble High Court of Madras held that cosmetics and toilet preparations which are a final product are not marketable unless packed in container and therefore, containers are treated as component part of final product. Input credit for such container is admissible.
5. Following the ratio of the orders of the Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
