Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. Whether 'Plastic Crates' are eligible for credit under 'capital goods' and whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit for 'Plastic Crates' are the points falling for consideration in this appeal. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Cotton Flax Yarn, Viscos Staple Fibre Yarn, Polyster Fibre yarn and Polyster Viscos Blender Yarn falling under Chapter 52 and 55. The appellants had taken Cenvat credit of Rs.20,800/- on the goods – 'Plastic Crates', falling under Chapter 3923.90 during the months of September 2001 to May 2002. Stating that the goods are neither specified under Rule 2 of Cenvat Rules 2001/2002 as "capital goods" nor can the same be considered as "spares and accessories of the machineries" used in the spinning of yarn in the factory, a show cause notice dated 27.09.2002 was issued to the appellant as to why (i) the credit of Rs.20,800/- should not be recovered under Rule 12 of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules 2001 and Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 read with Section 11A(1) and 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) interest as applicable should not be demanded under Rule 12 of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules 2001 and Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Sections 11AB(1) and 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and (iii) penalty should not be imposed under rule 13(1) of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and Rule 13(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The adjudicating authority held that the "Plastic Crates" plays no role to the manufacturing and cannot be treated as eligible "capital goods" and that the function of the 'Plastic Crates' is as carriers of cops from one Department to another and 'Plastic Crates' cannot be treated as 'accessories' as claimed by the assessee. By Order dated 5.8.2003, the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit of Rs.20,800/- and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002. 4. The appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed by the Appellate Authority holding that the Plastic Crates have an individual role in the manufacture of finished excisable goods and is an essential input/goods. By Order dated 5.8.2003, the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit of Rs.20,800/- and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002. 4. The appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed by the Appellate Authority holding that the Plastic Crates have an individual role in the manufacture of finished excisable goods and is an essential input/goods. The scope and ambit of definition of "input" is very wide, which covers all goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and the Cenvat Credit has to be allowed in respect of the goods used for such processes and denial of credit on 'Plastic Crates' is not justifiable. 5. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Appellate Authority, the Department preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the appellate authority and allowed the appeal holding that the 'Plastic Crates' used by the appellants as material handling equipment can hardly be treated as "input" and the definition of "input" under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2001/2002 cannot be extended so as to encompass the goods, which are conventionally regarded as "capital goods" 6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal and the appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law: "a) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the item under dispute namely 'Plastic Crates' is not eligible for credit under Capital Goods despite there being past precedents holding Plastic Goods to be eligible Capital Goods? b) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the term 'input' has a conventional meaning, it should get wholly or substantially used up by the time of output emerges when this is despite the fact that the definition of input itself does not prescribe such a condition? c) Whether it is justified for the Tribunal to reject a plea raised at the appellate stage on the count that the same was not raised before the lower authorities when the law on this aspect by the following rulings have laid the law that a benefit of a plea even if not specifically claimed by the assessee should not be denied if they are otherwise entitled to it and the right of the assessee is not restricted to the plea raised by them?" 7. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the question whether credit is admissible on 'Plastic Crates' used as material handling device was considered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal of Ahmedabad in 2009. The learned counsel submitted that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the said case of BANGO PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA-1 (2009 (235) E.L.T. 636 (Tri.-LB.) held that the 'Plastic Crates' used as material handling device within factory for internal transportation of goods was held to be accessory is the aid in increasing the effectiveness of the machinery and that Cenvat/Modvat credit on "Plastic Crates" are admissible as a capital goods. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal after referring to number of decisions held as under: "14. Reference to all the above decisions was necessary to understand the scope of the term "accessory". If the plastic crates are held to be an accessory to the main machine, appearing against Sr. No.(i) of the definition of the capital goods, as contained in Rule 2 (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, they would earn the status of the eligible capital goods for the purposes of Modvat. The appreciation of the various judgments on expression "accessory" as discussed above, leads us to observe that an accessory may or may not be required for essential working of the main unit, but is an object which is used for the convenience and effectiveness of that unit. It may also not be necessary that such accessory must be designed to be used in a particular machine. The same may be of a kind, which is capable of being used as a common object, with number of machines. The only criteria for an object to be held as an accessory, as emerging from the above extracted portion of various judgments is that that a particular item should be capable of being used with a machine and should advance the effectiveness of working of that machine. The plastic crates in question are used for transportation of the raw material to the processing machine and all the finished goods from the machine to the storage area. It can be argued that instead of using such plastic crates as material handling device, the various components or the inputs can be carried manually also. The plastic crates in question are used for transportation of the raw material to the processing machine and all the finished goods from the machine to the storage area. It can be argued that instead of using such plastic crates as material handling device, the various components or the inputs can be carried manually also. However, the question is as to whether such transportation of the inputs or semi-finished goods in the factory would be convenient way of dealing, and whether the same would not hamper the continuous working of the machine on account of delays in the delivery of the raw material etc., It may be possible in theory to do so, but is neither practical nor possible to do so in the actual manner. The delivery of the raw material in time for increasing the effective working of the same and then removal of the finished goods from the vicinity of the machine contributes may be in a subordinate degree to attain a general result or effect. Same adds to definition of effectiveness of the machinery, and when viewed and judged in the light of interpretation of the term "accessory" by various Courts, the plastic crates are required to be held as accessory only. If that be so, the same would fall under Sr.No.3(i) of Rule 2(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 24. We full agree with the above judgment on the issue. The plastic crates used for transporting/storing of the goods in the factory of production. Proper storage of inputs is essential for efficient manufacturing process and in absence of proper facilities for storage and transportation; the same will affect the manufacturing process. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rajasthan State Chemical Works ( 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (SC)) has observed that the manufacturing process starts with the drawing of water from the reservoir. By applying the same fact, it can be safely concluded that the manufacturing process starts with the issuance of the inputs from the stores and their further transportation to the production platform is only a part of the process of manufacture integrally related to the final production. In absence of the delivery of the raw material to the manufacturing platform, the process cannot start. Such delivery of the goods includes transportation of the goods by plastic crates. Similarly, finished products required to be stored in a bonded store room. In absence of the delivery of the raw material to the manufacturing platform, the process cannot start. Such delivery of the goods includes transportation of the goods by plastic crates. Similarly, finished products required to be stored in a bonded store room. The plastic crates are again sued for such transportation. As such, we are of the view that the plastic crates would also be eligible for modvat credit as input." 8. Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent/Revenue submitted that as against the above judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, no appeal has been preferred by the Department and it is submitted that the Department has accepted the said judgment and acted upon the same. 9. Since the issue is covered by the judgment in BANGO PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA-1 (2009 (235) E.L.T. 636 (Tri.- LB.) and that the plastic crates are eligible for credit under capital goods, going by the above larger bench decision of the CESTAT, the impugned order of the CESTAT is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs.