CCE Vs. PREMIER INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Premier Instruments and Controls Ltd., (M/s. Pricol, for short) are engaged in the manufacture of Oil pumps, Gears, Pinions and Valve assembly and are availing Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. During the period from June to December 2002, they took Cenvat credit of Rs. 36,108/ - on Plastic crates and P.P. Sheet trays considering these goods as 'inputs'. The original authority disallowed the credit, holding that the said items did not fit into the definition of "inputs". Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the definition of "input" was wide enough to cover the above items and, accordingly, allowed the credit. Hence the Revenue's appeal. For the period June -September 2003, Cenvat credit of Rs. 6004/ - taken by M/s. Pricol on plastic crates and P.P.sheet trays was also allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). This time, however, the appellate authority considered the above items as 'capital goods'. The party has filed appeal No. E/332/2005 for holding that the "crates" and "trays" are 'inputs' and not 'capital goods'.

(2.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the short question to be considered in both the appeals is whether the "crates" and "trays" could be considered as "inputs" under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2002. An identical question was considered in appeal No. E/958/2004 [CCE Salem v. PKPN Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.] and, by Final Order No. 888/2005 dt. 24.6.05], it was held that the "plastic" crates which were used by the said assessee for handling materials within their factory could hardly be treated as inputs. Ld.counsel has made an endeavour, in the instant case, to persuade me to hold to the contra. In this connection, he has relied on a few decisions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal. On the other hand, ld.SDR has sought to distinguish the cases cited by ld.counsel, from the instant case. She has also taken support from the above Final Order No. 888/2005.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the "crates" and "trays" were used for storing and handling raw materials, sub -assemblies and finished goods in the assessee's factory. Similar "crates," used for similar purpose by another assessee [M/s. PKPN Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.] were held not to be inputs in Final Order No. 888/2005 ibid for the period September 2001 to May 2002. The relevant part of the said final order is extracted below :