Case Law Details
Modern Packaging Company Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: A recent order by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Ahmedabad addresses the eligibility of a supplier of Rotogravure Printing Cylinders to avail CENVAT credit for excise duty. The case revolved around whether the supplier had correctly paid the excise duty or not, and whether the recipient of the cylinders could claim CENVAT credit. In this article, we provide a detailed analysis of the case, including the background, arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal’s decision.
1. Background: The appellant in this case is a manufacturer of packaging materials, and they procured printing cylinders used in their production process from Accuprint Systems, Mumbai. These printing cylinders were classified under Chapter heading No. 84425010 and were initially considered for exemption under Notification No. 49/2006-CE dated 31.12.2006. The department contended that these cylinders should be subject to either 2% duty without CENVAT or 5% with CENVAT, effective from March 1, 2011, as per Notification No. 2/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011. The appellant claimed that the supplier had paid the duty correctly and that they were entitled to CENVAT credit for the duty paid by the supplier.
2. Arguments by the Appellant: The appellant’s counsel argued that the denial of CENVAT credit was based on incorrect grounds. They presented a clarification issued by the supplier’s jurisdictional Chief Commissioner, which confirmed that the supplier had paid the duty correctly and was directed to continue paying duty without availing the benefit of Notification No. 49/2006-CE. The appellant contended that they were entitled to claim CENVAT credit as recipients of the goods. They further cited several judgments and decisions in their favor, including previous orders by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Arguments by the Revenue: The revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining that the appellant was not eligible for CENVAT credit due to the incorrect payment of duty by the supplier.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
