PONNI SUGARS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses and are availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods. During the period of dispute, they imported raw sugar for conversion into refined sugar and this product was cleared on payment of duty. They availed CENVAT credit of the duty paid on jumbo bags [made of HDPE] which were used for transportation of the imported raw sugar from the port to their factory. The benefit was availed on the basis that the jumbo bags were eligible 'inputs' for CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the present appeal, it is claimed that the bags were used not only for transporting raw sugar from the port to the factory but also as a facility for storage of the raw material in the factory. Learned Counsel has reiterated this plea. Alternatively, he has submitted that, if the jumbo bags cannot be considered to be inputs, the same may be considered to be 'capital goods'. Learned SDR has opposed the claim for CENVAT credit on the jumbo bags, whether as inputs or capital goods. He has also pointed out that the claim of capital goods credit was not raised before any of the authorities below. As regards the claim of CENVAT credit on the jumbo bags as inputs, it is submitted that a similar claim of another assessee was rejected by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Grasim Industries Ltd.

(2.) AFTER giving careful consideration to the submissions, I have found no merit in this appeal. The jumbo bags were used for transporting the imported raw material from port to factory. The claim of the appellants that the bags were used for storing raw material in the factory also is not supported by any evidence. The claim of the appellants has consistently been in terms of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which provides the definition of 'inputs':

(3.) With reference to the above definition, learned Counsel has submitted that the jumbo bags, being goods used as packing material, would qualify to be 'input' for the purpose of CENVAT credit. This argument is simply unacceptable inasmuch the jumbo bags were not actually used as packing material for finished goods in the factory. They were used only for transporting the raw material from the port to the factory. A container used for inward transportation of input does not come within the ambit of the above definition. On the other hand, such containers were held to be ineligible for MODVAT/ CENVAT credit in the cases of Universal Cables (supra) and Grasim Industries (supra). The assessee has not claimed capital goods credit in respect of the jumbo bags before the lower authorities. 5. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)