CCE Vs. MOLDTEC PLASTICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal of revenue contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in allowing Modvat credit on inputs obtained other than on sale by the respondent. It is being pointed out that the assessee is a Jon worker engaged in the manufacture of packing materials for M/s Asian Paints and obtained the main raw material i.e. HDPE granules free of charge from M/s Asian paints. The respondent carried out the conversion of the HDPE into packing materials and returned the same to M/s Asian Paints. The contention raised is that Notification No. 14/95 as amended by Notification No. 32/94 contemplates taking of credit only against a sale invoi8ce and in the pres3nt case, since there was no sale of HDPE granules to the respondent, no credit was due.

(2.) We have perused the records and have heard both sides. The commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal following an earlier order to a same effect. We find that the same issue between the parties had come up before this Tribunal and under order reported in 2002 (148) ELT 906, the Tribunal held in favour of the respondent. The respondents have also produced order of the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. APSEB - 2002 (147) ELT 290 holding that eligibility to credit is not affected by the fact that inputs are supplied free of cost to the job worker.

(3.) The issue, thus, remains settled in favour of the respondent. There is no merit in the present appeal. The same stands dismissed.