on>Ramesh Nair#10CS500MiscellaneousMANURamesh Nair,Healthcare#HealthcareTRIBUNALSAd Valorem#Adjudicating Authority#Appeal#Application#Assessee#Bench#Benefit#Board#CEGAT#CENVAT#CENVAT credit#Charge#Clearance#Commissioner (Appeals)#Consideration#Container#Containers#Cost#Credit#Date#Demand#Duty#Erroneous#Excisable Goods#Excise Duty#Exempted Goods#Exemption#Factory#Final Product#Goods#Goods Manufactured#Identical#India#Information#Inputs#Invoice#Leviable#Manufacture#Manufacturer#Manufacturing Process#Material#MODVAT#MODVAT Credit#Non Excisable#Non Excisable Goods#Non-Excisable#Non-Excisable Goods#Notice#Notification#Order#Packaging Material#Payment#Process#Rate of duty#Record#Reference#Removal#Reversal#Service#Show Cause Notice#Superintendent#Tax#Tribunal#Valuation#Value#Waste#Writ#Writ Petition2022-6-27 -->

MANU/CS/0144/2022

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Excise Appeal No. 10100 of 2020

Decided On: 24.06.2022

Appellants: Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: C.C.E. & S.T., Vadodara-I

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ramesh Nair

DECISION

Ramesh Nair, Member (J)

1. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is required to pay an amount of 6% in terms of 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on empty packaging drums of cenvatable input considering the same as non excisable goods.

2. Shri Mitesh Jain, learned chartered accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand considering the drum as non excisable goods. He further submits that the empty drums are not generated during the process of manufacture it is cleared after emptying the inputs therefore, the drums are cleared as such and the same is not liable for payment under Rule 6(3). He placed reliance on this tribunal's judgment in the case of M/s. Banco Gasket I Ltd. vs. CCE &ST-2021 8 TMI 77

3. Shri Vinod Lukose, Learned Superintendent (AR) reiterates the finding of the impugned order.

4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. I find that the lower authorities have confirmed the demand only on the ground that empty drums of cenvatable input is a non excisable goods and therefore, the clearance there of will attract 6% reversal in terms of rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the identical issue this Tribunal has passed the following order in the case of Banco Gasket I Ltd.

"4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the Show Cause Notice was issued demanding the amount equal to 6% of the value of packaging material cleared by the appellant. The said packaging material is nothing but an empty packaging material in which input was received by the appellant. Therefore, it is the fact that the said packaging material is not arising out of manufacture process of any final product. The Show Cause Notice also invoked Explanation (1) & (2) of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules which is reproduced below:-

"Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this rule, exempted goods or final products as defined in clauses (d) and (h) of rule 2 shall include non-excisable goods cleared for a consideration from the factory.

"Explanation 2.-Value of non-excisable goods for the purposes of this rule, shall be the invoice value and where such invoice value is not available, such value shall be determined by using reasonable means consistent with the principles of valuation contained in the Excise Act and the rules made there under."

On plain reading of the above explanation, I find that as per explanation (1) only goods which are defined under clause (d) and (h) of........