1. The short question arising for consideration in this appeal of the Revenue is whether input duty credit is admissible to the respondents in respect of plastic crates and bins for the period March-April, 2002 under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. There was no representation for the party on the last occasion also despite notice. In the circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this appeal after examining the records and hearing the learned SDR. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO Kanpur reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 34 (S.C.), wherein the expression "in the manufacture of goods" was interpreted by the Court and it was held that it should normally encompass the entire process of converting raw material into finished goods. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has, on this basis, treated the plastic crates as inputs and allowed input duty credit to the assessee, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had not claimed such relief. In the present appeal, the rationale of the above view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been questioned. It is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision did not consider any machinery or part or accessory thereof, as input. This ground has been reiterated today by the learned SDR. The case of the assessee appears to be that the definition of "input" under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is wide enough to include any goods (except High speed oil and motor spirit) used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final product, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not. According to them, "plastic crates and bins" fit well into this definition.