2007 (3) TMI 31 - AT - Central Excise

Demand- Appellant brought back defective goods and cleared after removing the defects but clearance allowed only on payment of duty Procedure for clearance not fulfilled by appellant Commissioner(Appeal) after considering the fact set aside the demand and allow the appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay duty on goods returned by customers for rectification and re-clearance.
2. Interpretation of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding clearance of rectified goods.
3. Limitation period for raising demands related to goods cleared after rectification.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the liability to pay duty on goods returned by customers for rectification and re-clearance. The lower authorities confirmed a duty of Rs. 54,519 against the appellants for goods initially cleared but returned by customers and re-cleared after defects were rectified. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, an assessee can take credit of duty initially paid on goods for payment of duty upon their removal after rectification. However, the appellants, who initially cleared the goods under exemption, could not avail of this credit. The absence of provisions allowing clearance of defective goods without duty payment led to the confirmation of duty against the appellants.

2. The judgment further delves into the interpretation of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellate authority emphasized that Rule 16 permits manufacturers to receive back cleared goods, take credit of duty paid on them, and use this credit during clearance of rectified goods. The appellants failed to follow this procedure, leading to the conclusion that they had no case on merits. The absence of provisions akin to the previous Rules 173H or 173L in the new Central Excise Rules reinforced the denial of relief to the appellants based on the rule's strict interpretation.

3. Lastly, the judgment addresses the limitation period for raising demands related to goods cleared after rectification. The demands in question pertained to November and December 2001, but the show cause notice was issued in July 2004. The appellants had disclosed the clearance of rectified goods in their ER-1 filing in January 2002, indicating that the department was aware of the situation. Given this, the tribunal held that the demand was barred by limitation, setting it aside and allowing the appeal on this ground. The judgment was pronounced on 14-3-2007, providing a clear resolution to the issues raised in the case.